DITLIEB FELDERER is one of four refugee children who were all born
in different European countries. His younger sister was born in
Sweden; his elder sister in Italy. His brother was born in Germany
and he himself was born in Innsbruck, Austria on 23 April 1942. The
family suffered severe deprivations because of the war, and ended up
fleeing first to Italy and then to Sweden, where they became
citizens. In 1959 Mr. Felderer became converted to the Jehovah's
Witnesses and went on extensive evangelizing tours, including one to
north east America, stopping at New York, Buffalo, Niagara Falls,
Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. During all this time he was a
vigorous supporter of the Holocaust legend. Around 1968, he began to
notice certain discrepancies in the Exterminationists' descriptions.
In the early 1970s, while writing a research thesis on the Nazi
persecution of the Jehovah's Witnesses, he began to accumulate and
study a wide range of Exterminationist and Revisionist literature.
After weighing up the two views, he was convinced that the
Revisionist view was correct.

Since then, Mr. Felderer has founded his own excellent magazine
and publishing house, both called Bible Researcher. He also organizes
study tours of the various concentration camps in Poland each year,
and has gathered together a unique collection of slides which
illustrate the fraudulent nature of the "gas chambers." Mr. Felderer
is married to a Philippino, and lives in Stockholm.

Each chapter (except the "Introduction") - there are twelve of
them - has received its own reference. Schnabel 6:84 would therefore
indicate, Chapter 6, page 84, of the Swedish edition. Readers should
be aware of faulty translations both with Schnabel's book and the so
called "diary" of Anne Frank. As far as the "diary" is concerned only
the original Dutch version is the authoritative version when it comes
to printed matter. The use of an asterisk indicates probable source.
A colon indicates page number.

FOREWORD

It is with mixed feelings that we present here the first real
expose ever undertaken on The Diary of Anne Frank. From having
been positive to the diary our standpoint gradually changed to the
negative until we finally had to dismiss the whole thing as a
forgery. This study gives our reasons for believing so. In all
honesty we must admit that our previous positive stand was not based
on a serious study of the diary itself. Like most other people we
neither had the inclination to search into a young girl's miseries
and tragedies nor did we have the time to give the diary a detailed
study. Any negative statement we viewed as most others likely have
done: coming from anti Semites, Jew haters, former Nazis or Fascists.
The issue was then dropped. Recently our interest got rekindled
partly by our attempt to rebut Richard Harwood's book Did Six
Million Really Die? The Truth At Last. The book threw us
completely out of our senses for we felt surely it must be a well
established fact that more than six million Jews had been
exterminated and that there were gas chambers all over Hitler's
Germany. We immediately recognized the danger if this sort of
distortion should spread and so we decided to find errors in the book
and in this way counteract it. We felt the task would be simple
seeing the facts of the "Holocaust" are so thoroughly documented.
Perhaps this was our mistake for in doing so we could not help but
get intrigued and involved with an issue we would never have dreamed
to get involved with only a few years ago. Have we been fooled? If
so, by whom and how could they so easily have fooled us? Were we not
trained researchers? What is the purpose of those trying to fool us?
While reasoning these matters out we necessarily also stumbled on
Anne Frank. After all, she is the pinnacle of the Holocaust theory.
Harwood mentions in the first edition of his book that the diary is a
forgery. Unfortunately for Harwood, he seems to have been misled as
the court case concerning Meyer Levin apparently did not concern the
diary but a play built on the diary. (Compare Meyer Levin, The
Obsession, Simon & Schuster, NY, 1973). However this
discovery proved to be even more unfortunate for us, for while we
found this out, checking up pertinent material we could not help but
discover numerous peculiarities, some so grave we wondered how it was
that no one had aired these problems before. Harwood had recognized
the patient was sick but he had apparently given the wrong diagnosis.
The question now came up: Should we keep silent or tell the world
about our discoveries? Perhaps the lie after all did some good? Did
it not expose Hitler and his Nazi Germany? Was it not useful in
giving Jews their own homeland in Palestine? Did not her case give us
the feeling Jews had the right to evict the Palestinians? Did not
Anne symbolize the persecuted Jewish child? Was not in fact the whole
Holocaust propaganda built up on the diary? These and other questions
kept circulating in our minds, disturbing us with many sleepless
nights. However, truth prevailed. We have found no other choice but
to give to the world that which we have found. Truth and propriety
must stand above everything else. If truth is destroyed our earth is
on the brink of collapse. The environment is built on truth. Truth
should have nothing to fear. And so we present our study to the
readers. The colossal hoax surrounding the Anne Frank diary is so
immense, the implications so profound that mankind must find out
about it. It is our solemn wish that mankind, through our exposure
will be inspired to keep fighting for truth no matter whom it might
hurt. Our intention to expose the racket is further prompted by the
callous spirit of those people defending it without the least
consideration whether it is a genuine document or not. Numerous
people who in one way or another have been involved with the diary
have pleaded with us to keep the matter quiet. They feel that the
"intentions" were well meant. However when we recognized their
selfish interests it only gave us more assurance we were doing the
right thing by exposing it.

ABOUT ANNE FRANK AND THE "DIARY"

We are told that: "Attempts to have the diary published after the
war were initally frustrated by the unwillingness of numerous
publishers" (EJ, Vol.7:54). In spite of this, the first Dutch edition
appeared as early as 1947 (BE, Vol.6:450 gives 1946) with the title
Het Achterhuis, Dagboekbrieven van 14 Juni 1942-1 Augustus
1944. Met een inleiding van Annie Romein Verschoor (Contact,
Amsterdam). In Swedish het achterhuis has been translated as
"gardshuset:" It is reported that a Norwegian, Mr. Thilo Schoder from
Kristiansand received the ORIGINAL manuscript from the Jewish writer
Anneliese Schutz who was a former editor of the Berlin paper Die
Neue Zeit. Shortly after Schoder had met Mr. Frank in Holland he
went to Norway with the ORIGINAL manuscript in order to get it
published but all publishers refused it. The report makes it out as
if Schoder had got the original "diary" from Schutz (*AB, 1957, Feb.
10). The first German translation or transcription (German:
ubertragen, hence not a real translation) came out in
Heidelberg 1949 (BE, op.cit. gives the date of 1950, 6th
ed:1959) published by Lambert Schneiider. The above A. Schutz
transcribed it. Full title: Das Tagebueh der Anne Frank, 14.
Juni 1942-1. August 1944. Mit einer Einfuhrung von Marie Braun. The
famous Jewish outfit Fischer Bucherei KG Frankfurt a.M. and Hamburg
carried it afterward. In 1955 there is a Fischer Bucherei Nr. 77
edition of it with a foreword by Albrecht Goes. (Mit einem Vorwort
von Albrecht Goes) This edition was also ubertragen by
Schutz.

EBM, Vol. 4:279 claims the girl was born on 12 June 1929 at
Frankfurt am Main (Frankfort) and that the first English edition came
out in 1953. However our Cardinal edition states that Anne Frank:
The Diary Of A Young Girl came out in a "Doubleday edition
published June, 1952:" Notice how even on the question of dates,
conflicting information is presented in standard reference works.

The first Cardinal printing appeared in October, 1953. Our copy
(36th printing, August, 1963) has a "preface" by George Stevens and
an "introduction" by Eleanor Roosevelt along with an "epilogue". The
book has 240 pages in all. We know that along with Anneliese Schutz
at least two other persons assisted Mr. Frank. They were: Isa Cauvern
and Albert Cauvern. It is alleged that Anne Frank died at the Bergen
Belsen concentration camp due to typhus in March 1945 (EJ,
op.cit:53). If the purpose was to exterminate all Jews as is
alleged we find it most strange why this girl was first sent: "to
Westerbork, and then (Sept ember 2,1944) to Auschwitz-Birkenau" and
that "in December 1944 Anne arrived in Bergen-Belsen with her sister
Margot" (EJ, op.cit.) a long distance from Auschwitz, not to
die of "gassing" but of typhus. All this sort of shipping back and
forth seems most' incongruous to us if we are to believe the
"extermination" stories. How anyone in a time of full scale war;
where transportation and food supplies are severely hampered, can
proceed in this manner to "exterminate" people is beyond our
comprehension. The whole matter reaches the ultimate in silliness
when we are further told that the father, instead of being gassed to
death, as was the original purpose, ends up with being
hospitalized at Auschwitz; surviving the ordeal (EBM,
op.cit.)! The logic of this would mean that the Germans wanted people
to be healthy before

1

they were sent to the gas chambers! Mr. Frank's wife died also. He
remarried with "Fritzi."

The book has been translated into numerous languages. Some changes
have been made from the original Dutch version. A Swedish edition by
Lars Hokerbergs Bokforlag, Stockholm, appeared in 1953. A Danish
edition appeared in 1956. The Norwegian edition Anne Franks
dagbok came out in 1952. The Finnish edition Nuoren tyton
paivakirja came out in 1955. An Estonian edition Anne Franki
paevik came out in 1958 (ENE, Vol.2:352).

Meyer Levin, who had been a "correspondent" in Spain during the
Civil War (1936-39) and later reported the Palestine disorders for
the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (1945-46) was, according to EJ the
"first writer to dramatize The Diary of Anne Frank (1952)"
(Vol.11:109). Whether the lawsuit brought against Mr. Frank by Levin
concerned this matter still remains unknown and unless we can examine
the complete, original, trial records we are only left guessing. In a
letter (BR-RH, Nr. 4, Fig. 6) of 27 April 1977, addressed to Mr.
Frank where, amongst other things, this matter of Levin was brought
up, the father told us (Ibid. Fig. 7) first that he would give
his full assistance (Ib. Fig. 8) and then that he did not want
to have anything to do with us in the future!

In the USA it was made into a prizewinning play by Frances
Goodrich and Albert Hackett. It was produced as a Broadway Play,
October 5, 1955, under the title The Diary of Anne Frank.

"THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK was one of the most highly
honored plays in Broadway history. It was awarded the Pulitzer
Prize, the New York Drama Critics Circle Award and the Antoinette
Perry Award." (Cardinal ed. back cover, see Fig. 3).

Albert Hackett was born in 1900 (OXAL:340). MWD explains:

"Hackett... Americanplay wright, was a young New York
actor in 1927 when he started collaborating on plays with a young
New Jersey born actress, Frances Goodrich (1891? - ). She soon
divorced her husband, the notable historian Hendrik Willem Van
Loon, and married Hackett. Together the Hacketts wrote a number of
popular film scripts . . . But their only memorable drama, on
which they spent years of research and writing, is the skillful
adaption of Anne Frank The Diary of a Young Girl (1947), the
moving account of an adolescent Jewish girl who was murdered in a
Nazi concentration camp after hiding in an Amsterdam warehouse and
office building for two years" (p. 329).

The same encyclopedia reports further on the play:

"Diary of Anne Frank, The, a play in two acts . . .
produced in 1955 andpublished in 1956. Setting: a warehouse and
office building in Amsterdam, 1942-45 . . . The play, like the
diary, has moved audiences all over the world. Both works are
bittersweet portrayals of a Jewish adolescent under stress, the
more poignant because of audiences' awareness of the cataclysmic
events outside the warehouse and the gruesome aftermath. Ready to
leave Amsterdam after the war, Mr. Frank reveals his daughter's
diary. The scene shifts to the hiding place the Franks occupied
from July 1942 to August 1944. Arriving in their upstairs hideout,
where they can make no noise whatever during the day, Anne decides
to think of it as a strange summer resort. She is strongly
attached to her father, argues incessantly with her mother, and
has a youthful romance with the shy son of the family hiding them.
There are joys and heartbreaks, festivals and fights. Just before
the hideout is discovered by the Nazis, Anne describes to her
young boyfriend the lovely day she sees through the skylight."
(p. 207).

We observe two errors here. First, the diary itself does not
confirm the diary itself does not confirm the state-

2

ment that "they can make no noise whatever." Second, the
boyfriend, Peter Van Daan, was not the son of the "family hiding
them" but the son of the family hiding with them. Another major
source writing about this reckless play is the McWD (Vol. 2:222). On
the 26th of October, 1956, the play had its premiere in Stockholm,
Sweden, at Intima teatern. Some of the actors were: Anne Frank
Harriet Andersson, Mr. Frank Hans Straat, Mrs. Frank Isa Quensel, Mr.
Van Daan Sigge Furst, Mrs. Van Daan Marta Dorff, Peter Bo Samuelson,
Dussel Gunnar Olsson (*AB, 1956, Oct. 27:3, Saturday). In Denmark the
play appeared at Allescenen in 1956 and at Aalborg Teater in 1957
(GSO, Vol. 2:252).

Literally thousands of people have been affected by the play,
their tears flooding down their chins. The play is full of
distortions where actual events have been faked. The Germans and
everything with them are made out as being veritable beasts. The
reckless manner in which the play went on in distorting actual events
apparently went so far that even Schnabel was forced to give a
correction to some of them in his book Anne Frank Spur eines
Kindes. In October, 1960, students of the Moscow University gave
their first performance of the play the Hacketts made. The stage
manager was Ivan Solovjov, attached to the Moscow Yermolova theatre
(AFFA:20).

George Stevens produced an expensive film in CinemaScope which
starred Millie Perkins as Anne Frank. The Twentieth Century Fox
brought out the movie The Diary of Anne Frank in 1959. The
Swedish premiere was on 14-9-1959. According to a news report, G.
Stevens invested one million kroner in reconstructing "authentic"
settings in which the events took place. Some of the scenes were
taken at Prinsengracht 263,Amsterdam, and in the warehouse. Stevens
was "permitted to remake the building the way it was at the time,"
which by the way indicates to us that changes had been made. Most of
the scenes however were taken at Holly wood where a copy of the
warehouse was made resting on springs, which "enables the building to
shake at bomb explosions" (*ST, 1958, June 30). The film further
enlarged on the hate propaganda spewed out by the Zionists against
the Palestinians and Germans. It was argued that this little Jewish
girl "becoming the symbol of the Persecuted Jewish child" (EJ,
op.cit;54) gave sufficient reasons why the Palestinians must
become the victims because of Hitler. Almost no criticism was voiced
in the public media against such monstrous brain washing. It would be
interesting to know how much money the father has made on these
projects. Some have stated it runs into the millions. One estimate
has been 20 million DM. (Heinz Roth, Anne Frank's Tagebuch Der
Grosse Schwindel). At least one school and a street have been
named after Anne Frank (*AB, 1956, Dec. 12). The Montessori school
which she attended was renamed after her (Schnabel, 2:42;
AFFA:5).

The AFFA booklet has an article by Henri F. Pommer where he writes
of the girl:

"The legend she founded is the kind her destroyers had
tried to wipe out. She is a Jewess spoken of by Germans as a
saint; she was an object of hatred, and has become a vehicle of
love. In Frankfurt-am Main, a memorial plaque now marks the house
where she lived from 1930 to '33, and in '57 her birthday was
celebrated in St. Paul's Church .. and the house where she wrote
the Diary has been turned into a museum by a group of Christians.
In Vienna and Tel Aviv, money has been raised to plant an Anne

3

Frank forest near Jerusalem. In West-Berlin, a center for
social work with young people has been named after her to
symbolize racial and social tolerance. In the United States,
Anne's twenty five months of hiding became the object of an
extremely popular Pulitzer Prize play, and a costly, top notch
film. The play, in its turn, produced a wave of philo-Semitism in
Germany" (5,6).

The same writer claims that "Anne has been the object of research
leading to a CAREFUL BIOGRAPHY" obviously thereby meaning Schnabel's
ludicrous book (6). All this must sound sickening to the readers when
we now present evidence the "document" nothing else but a palpable
fraud. In order to perpetuate the swindle an organization was
created:

"After World War II an organization in the name of
Anne Frank was set up and maintained in the house where the family
had hidden during the war. The Anne Frank House serves as a museum
and meeting place for youth to further the aims of peace." (EJ,
op.cit:54; compare *AB,1957, Aug. 7).

A Swedish news report in ST of May 4, 1960*, states the Anne Frank
House will become an international house for youth:

"As a worthy introduction to Holland's 15 year
commemoration of her liberation the famous Anne Frank House at
Prinsengracht in Amsterdam was opened on Tuesday after three years
reverencial restoration. Otto Frank, Anne's father, who partook in
the ceremonies became so touched he was unable to complete his
speech."

Apparently not all were equally touched or enthused. The same
report continues by stating that some years previously,
confrontations erupted between German tourists where some even had
the bad taste to sing Horst Wessel's song. To prevent a recurrence,
the German customs gave out a circular informing the tourists not to
be provocative, stating it would be best if they were to remain
indoors on Wednesday and Thursday. A later report states that the
Anne Frank Foundation resolved to found an Anne Frank Academy where
youths from the whole world could meet to study what could be done to
obliterate racial differences and "create better relations between
mankind" (*AB,1965, Jan. 30). It is claimed by the father and his
supporters that the "diary" stands as a living and truthful testimony
and as a bulwark against fascism, Hitlerism and neo-nazism. How our
exposure that the "document" is a fake will affect this claim remains
to be seen. The official Anne Frank Foundation (no date)
brochure (AFF) states:

"The Anne Frank Foundation owns the houses at 263 and
265, Prinsengracht. Part of the admission fees, as well as gifts
and donations from friends of the House all over the world, are
used to maintain the houses... The board of trustees and managing
board consist of Jews, Christians and representatives of
nonreligious groups of various political convictions. But all of
them are united in their vigilance against fascism and they
condemn everything that is intolerable according to the Diary of
Anne Frank and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

We would have hoped they had been equally vigilant against frauds
and deceptions. A further reading of this folder clearly indicates
that the purpose of the "Foundation" is to foist prejudices against
certain groups and to operate as a propaganda tool for the Zionists.
Those wanting further information about the "museum" should write:
Anne Frank Foundation, 263-265, Prinsengracht, Amsterdam C, Holland,
Phone 020 24 28 37 & 24 10 97.

4

Apparently not only the warehouse itself but the "entire complex"
of surrounding houses was DONATED:

"Twelve years after Anne's death, when her Diary was
already world famous, it became known that the owner of the house
had decided to have it pulled down. It goes without saying that
everything possible was done to prevent this. The owners of the
leading Dutch Ladies Juvenile Coat Factory, H. Berghaus Ltd., then
made the magnificent offer, that for the occasion of their 75th
anniversary, they would donate the house to the "Anne Frank
Foundation." But there was yet another danger. There had been talk
of pulling down all the surrounding houses, to make room for
modern office buildings. Should this have happened, the atmosphere
of the house on the Prinsengracht would have been entirely
altered. The owners were prepared to sell the group of houses that
they had bought on the Prinsengracht, and on the Westermarkt for
(350.000. The Mayor of Amsterdam was approached, and proved to be
very understanding and helpful. He started a campaign to gather
sufficient means to buy up the whole block of houses. In a
personal letter and in public announcements, he pointed out that
the ATMOSPHERE round the Anne Frank House must be saved, and that
it could be made into an international place for young people.
Thanks to contributions from all parts of the world, this became
possible. Having acquired the entire complex, the Anne Frank
Foundation was in a position to carry out structural alterations.
The building no. 265 Prinsengracht next door to the Anne Frank
House, was united with the original property. The old groundfloor
store room, mentioned by Anne in her Diary, was rebuilt as a hall
where we can receive visitors and hold lectures and seminars. It
is of course, a pity that as a result of these alterations
staircase A has disappeared and staircase B (see plan of the
secret annexe) can no longer be used The loss of the latter, in
particular,is regrettable: this staircase was used after
office hours by the inmates of the Secret Annexe" (AFFA:28 9).

In this way the mayor, the Dutch people and a whole world were
conned and thus created the Anne Frank Foundation monstrosity.

In a work of this nature where a young girl would reach from 13 to
15 years of age we would expect some stylistic changes to show up.
For instance, in the 5th edition of the 38 page, official brochure
called Anne Frank Foundation Amsterdam (AFFA) we are shown on
pages 6 and 10 various photographs of the girl at different ages.
Conspicuously we are not shown her handwriting at different ages.
Instead the brochure concentrates on unimportant side issues. Surely,
several examples of her own handwriting would be relevant here. At
the end of the brochure on page 36 we finally are shown an excerpt
purporting to belong to Anne Frank (Fig. 13), then 15 years old.
Somehow this excerpt, the only one given in the brochure does not fit
our conception of a girl at that age. It certainly has no relation to
the handwriting found in Life, International ed., 1958
September 15 (BR-RH, Nr 4, Fig. 9). It appears much more genuine for
a girl at that age. The entire Anne Frank case throws up series of
questions, all of them becoming more and more suspicious as time
moves on. We recall how the father is throwing a blanket of silence
on the issue. Why for instance, instead of all these Zionist
propaganda and atrocity stories appearing at the Anne Frank House,
are we not shown the actual prime source material of Anne Frank? Why
is not the actual "diary" exhibited at this center, a place much more
fitting for a documentary of this sort than in an alleged bank safe
in Switzerland?

5

The AFF folder states:

"2. The Foundation regularly organizes exhibitions on
topics which are related to the history of the House: oppression,
persecution and discrimation. Examples of exhibitions held by the
Foundation include: "Migrant Workers" and 2000 Years of
Anti-Semitism". Here, too, guided tours are given to groups if
requested."

It is indeed passing strange why no exhibition has been made
showing the actual documents and handwritings of Anne Frank. At least
one should expect the "diary" exibited. But also Anne Frank's other
"documents" should be exhibited such as:

"After the entry of March 29, Anne's expressed desires
to be a journalist, and then a famous writer, grew more numerous.
[Possibly an invention included in the diary to make it appear
she was a competent writer and could have written the diary.]
Writing would, she hoped, enable her to live after her death;
[More likely the father's wish.] She wrote short stories,
even wanting to submit them for publication. Do you Remember?, a
collection of fables and little personal experiences, was
published in Holland after the diary and has become "something of
a minor children's classic." In 1959 its contents became available
in English in The Works of Anne Frank" (AFFA:15).

Why are none of these original documents exhibited? At Kungliga
Biblioteket (Royal Library), Stockholm, Sweden, the priceless Devil's
Bible of the 12th century is permanently exhibited to all visitors
(without an extrance fee) and at Carolina rediviva at Uppsala
numerous priceless documents can be seen by all visitors, the most
unique perhaps being Ulfila's (311?-381 A.D.) "Silver Bible;" Codex
argentius. Apparently Mr. Frank is so little concerned about his
"documents" that he has not even bothered to display photocopies of
them at the museum!

The Anne Frank Foundation is constantly begging for money. It
should have no problem to encase the Anne Frank exhibits in proper
display cases. Their refusal to do so should indicate to the careful
investigator something is smelling. To further indicate the immensity
of the hoax the EBM informs us that:

"The hiding place on the Prinsengracht Canal has
become a museum and SHRINE. In 1957, 2,000 young Germans marched
in rain to the camp where Anne had died" (Vol. 4:279).

If the Anne Frank case should turn out to be a hoax, a thing which
we will conclusively prove, it must, in view of its vast undertaking
and impact on world opinion, be one of the most flagrant literary
hoaxes ever foisted on mankind.

ACTUAL SIZE OF THE "DIARY"

A perplexing problem which the investigator is faced with is the
question as to the actual size of the "diary." The aforementioned
AFFA booklet purports to show a picture of it on page 5. Judging from
this picture its appearance seems to be a rather tiny diary of modern
design. That the "diary" was rather small can be further determined
from the statement that she kept it, or it was found inside "exercise
books." The folder a Brief Guide To The Anne Frank House (BG:3)
states:

"When Miep and Elly, the loyal friends of the family
in hiding, were cleaning up they found the exercise books in which
Anne had kept her diary." [Notice singular one diary
here.]

In order for a diary to be kept inside exercise books we would
assume it to be, not only small in width and length but also rather
thin. Apparently it was small enough so that she had few problems
hiding it from, the surrounding eyes in their "cramped quarters"
(AFFA:9). The father in spite of the cramped living quarters never
knew of it until after the war, at least so we are told by some
sources. That it was of a smallish size can be further determined
from George St evens' "preface" for he calls it "small" and "the
little diary SEEN ONLY BY HERSELF" (Cardinal ed.). Another perplexing
problem arises now. How can we square this with the fact that a work
of this length, stretching to over 230 printed pages in the Cardinal
edition, how can it be written in such a "little diary"? We should
also re member here that according to the father's own admission not
everything written in the diary has been printed (239; AFFA:6).
Exactly how much was left out no one can determine unless we are
allowed to examine the originals. In the "Gutachten" (expert opinion,
Fig. 8) of Frau Minna Becker, an obscure person of Frau Minna Becker,
an obscure person we have so far been unable to contact, she calls it
"drei festen Tagebuchern I, II, and III," without giving their size.
Apparently then from this "expert opinion" there were THREE solid
diaries and not one as we are told elsewhere. In such a case there
must have been three firm diaries which were enclosed inside the
"exercise books" that Miep and Elly found on the floor. The official
story given to the world has been that it concerned one diary, not
three and indeed only one is shown in the official guide (AFFA:5).
How three diaries could have been kept inside the exercise books
poses some rather interesting questions. In view of that and for
other reasons the one diary story continues to be used. "It took" the
father "many weeks to finish reading the DIARY" (AFFA:6) not diaries
thereby indicating it concerns one diary. Anne Frank writes herself
about "this cardboard covered notebook" (singular) and calls it "a
diary" (AFFA:14, Cardinal ed: 2,3). We now move en to a photograph
found in the Swedish newspaper Expressen. (1976, Sunday, Oct.
10:7; Fig. l ). Mr. Frank is seen there holding the "diary" in his
hands, a rather odd picture indeed as the father is holding a large
book in his hands. Perhaps it is a photocopy of the original but even
then, judging by the size of the replica it certainly was not a small
and thin diary unless the pages have been enlarged and a heavy paper
is used. It should further be noted that the diary in the brochure
(5) has rounded corners whereas in the Expressen picture it
has straight edges. We are simply left mystified by all these seeming
discrepancies.

THE "DIARY'S" MAKE UP

What sort of cover did the diary have? How many written and
unwritten pages did it have? How were the pages fastened: sewn,
stapled, taped or glued? What is its total weight? What structure did
the paper have? What implement or implements were used to write with:
pencil, fountain pen or something else? Was ink or aniline dye used?
What color did the writing have? What was the color of the pages
where the entries were made? Were the pages lined - if so how? Were
things glued or fastened to the pages? Are any telltale marks left in
it? Was there any string around the material? Were the corners
straight or rounded, etc.? All these questions along with numerous
other questions must be asked. Unfortunately, in spite of the fact
that the book came out in 1947 we are

7

still left guessing and it seems like the father is determined to
KEEP investigators guessing. We have already spoken about its size
which remains unknown. The photograph in AFFA:5 depicts some sort of
a checkered, perhaps plastic covered book, having some sort of key
lock provision. Possibly it had a strap on the other side which could
be fastened and locked with a key. It seems to resemble a modern
diary for children. The corners of the cover are rounded. George
Stevens in his "preface" describes it in this way: "Of all the
remarkable things about Anne Frank, I believe the most important is
the fact of her survival - a survival contained between the cover, of
a small redcheckered cloth-coverec diary book" (Cardinal ed.). It
seems that neither was G. Stevens fortunate enough to see the
original diary and hi` information about the diary being
"red-checkered" and "cloth covered" he likely obtained from the
father.

Apparently then it must be a red-checkered, cloth covered diary.
Indeed the photograph in the AFFA brochure fits this description
nicely. An intriguing question at this moment is to ask not only if
any such diaries were available at the store where the father is said
to have bought it, if the book depicted is as old as it is claimed to
be and whether the photograph is an actual picture of the original
diary or some other diary. We can be sure of the fact that the
picture has no resemblance to the one shown in Expressen which
we previously mentioned. A rather peculiar statement can also be
gleaned from the "diary" itself for Anne Frank is alleged to have
said: "There is no doubt that paper is patient and as I don't intend
to show this CARDBOARD COVERED NOTEBOOK bearing the proud name of
`diary' to anyone" (AFFA:14; Cardinal ed:2). Does the AFFA photograph
of a cloth or plastic covered diary with key-lock provision resemble
a "cardboard-covered notebook"? Hardly.

The case became further mystified when we on one occasion were
told by a Jewish man who claimed he personally knew those who had
found the material of the diary SCATTERED on the floor. If this is
true, these pages must later have been bound into a book by a
bookbinder. The subject is indeed most difficult to unravel. Only by
a thorough literal examination of ALL of Anne Frank's ORIGINAL works,
a thorough photographic investigation and chemical analysis on the
prime source material will we ever know anything at all. Scholars
should have insisted on this long ago instead of passing the work off
as genuine. Already at its initial stage so many obvious
discrepencies are involved that we cannot help but wonder how anyone
of any honesty could pass this work off as a genuine product of this
girl. Obviously the literary market is virtually inundated by quacks
of all kinds. All those experts involved with the case and who have
kept quiet are nothing but quacks. The risk today is that Mr. Frank
or someone else, being aware of the "document's" real character may
rig up some way whereby all future investigations prove futile. Many
of those involved at the inception of the hoax are no longer alive
making it difficult to investigate vital points. Of course we
recognize that even then it would have been a difficult thing to
investigate as those involved most likely were in no hurry to talk.
Those few critics who dared to voice their criticism were all
singularly dismissed for being anti Semites.

CRAMPED QUARTERS

The AFFA:9 brochure states of Anne Frank and her immediate
surroundings:

"Often she was difficult to live with.

8

Tensions were almost inevitable for EIGHT PEOPLE living with
SO MANY RESTRICTIONS in such CRAMPED QUARTERS."

The above mentioned Expressen interview with the Franks confirms
this point further by stating they were living "cramped" (vi bodde
så tätt tillsammans, p:6). Obviously this sort of
surrounding with "cramped quarters" and "many restrictions" would be
anything but a conducive place to secretly start working on a
literary achievement of this sort. Another even more intriguing
question is how no one, in spite of all these restrictions and
cramped quarters knew a thing about her writing the diary, not even
her own father? The Expressen article (6) states definitely that it
was first in 1945, after the father had returned to Amsterdam, that
he first read it. The AFFA:13 brochure states:

"During the twenty five months in the Secret Annexe,
the world of her thought WAS A SECRET within a SECRET a SECRET SO
WELL KEPT that EVEN HER FATHER confessed, when the Diary was first
published, `I never realized my little Anna was so deep."'

Furthermore, George Stevens states in his "preface": "At the same
time, Anne was quietly penning her words in the little diary SEEN
ONLY BY HERSELF" (Cardinal eel.). Who but the father could have told
him this? How can it be that a group of people living under "so many
restrictions" and "in such cramped quarters" never knew or saw the
diary, a diary filled with entries starting June 14, 1942 to August
1, 1944? The whole thing is preposterous.

PREVIOUS LITERARY ACHIEVEMENTS

In view of the fact that we are left with a "diary" having the
peculiar qualification, qualifying itself of its very existence and
being published and as we are told other writings of the authoress
have been assembled into a book, it would certainly not be improper
to pose the question of her previous literary achievements. We cannot
but smile and wonder whether those responsible for the production are
trying to find a ready excuse when they state the following as found
in the AFFA:13 brochure:

"It was to BE EXPECTED that LITTLE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
of Anne's talent would be found. When she went into hiding, she
was not a diarist worthy of much attention."

However those responsible in assembling the concoction saw to it
that this situation would be rectified. Likely it was also given as
an excuse for the fact that so few witnesses could be found
testifying her "literary talents." A better excuse could not have
been given had it been invented.

HOW MUCH LEFT OUT?

How much was actually left out from the original diary? In
addition, what was left out? No one knows but those responsible. Let
us quote the AFFA:6 brochure here:

"It took him many weeks to finish reading the diary;
the emotional strain of even a few pages would overcome him.
Eventually HE COPIED OUT ALMOST THE ENTIRE WORK, OMI TING ONLY
`some passages which he felt to be too intimate or which might
hurt other people's feelings.' He had NO THO LIGHT OF PUBLISHING
IT."

Three outright lies are made in one breath here. First, if the
father had not been interested in getting it published there would
have been no reason for him to "copy out" the diary, much less show
it to friends. We also wonder whether Isa and Albert Cauvern who were
supposed to have assisted him in typing out the work used the
original diary or diaries or whether they took it directly from Mr.
Frank's "copied out" copy?

9

Second, it is obvious that Mr. Frank did NOT copy "out almost the
ENTIRE WORK." Third, the world was astounded to hear several years
after 1947, having been told only some intimate passages and those
hurting people were excluded that the girl had left a whole selection
of writings. The "epilogue" in the Cardinal edition states that:
"Apart from A VERY FEW PASSAGES, which ARE OF LITTLE INTEREST TO THE
READER, the ORIGINAL TEXT HAS BEEN PRINTED:" How is it then that if
only a "very few passages" were left out that would be of "little
interest to the reader" that the world later was given a whole book
purporting to be her writings. Had the reader suddenly changed his
mind, now wanting to read these passages of "little interest"?
Margaretha Schwartz who had written the Expressen article of
her interview with the Franks told us those parts were left out where
the daughter talks about sex and her parents. However, the "diary"
does contain portions of adolescent sex which no doubt did their part
in making the diary popular. So why all the fuss? Unless we are to
suspect that the girl in fact went into perverse sex details one
wonders why these portions were not also included. The diary is
filled with portions where Anne makes rude remarks hurting "other
people's feelings" so neither would this be a cause for leaving them
out. The important question remains: What was left out? Why was it
left out? Why has no facsimile been made of the ENTIRE diary in view
of all this time and of all the discrepancies?

TEENAGE SEX

Another, matter which strikes a reader is that the diary is not
the type of story one would want one's own child to write. It is not
a KIND story. It is not the sign of a healthy child. Indeed it leaves
the air of being a product of someone who tries to invent a child's
mind but is unable to do so, sprinkling it with "sexy" portions to
sell the story. We need not here go into the various stories
circulating that those portions which were left out concerned
advanced sex. We find it difficult to believe that this girl, living
in such "cramped quarters" ever was involved with these things. We
cannot make out why a girl living under these circumstances would be
preoccupied with all these "love affairs" at such tender age. In
today's promiscuous society it may be an ordinary thing but not
during the war. It simply does not make sense to us. Some plausible
logic could perhaps be found if viewed from a Jewish moral background
where the teachings stem from Talmudic sources. Really WE don't "see
the use of only cuddling each other" (17 April-44:188) as Anne is
supposed to have written. Read for instance the entries made between
16 April-44 and 17 April-44. It does not give us the impression of
being a story written by a young healthy girl but rather the work of
some person or persons who are trying to make an issue out of
something invented. The story smacks of being a work whose chief aim
is to sell and to be used for propaganda purposes. Apparently the
"sexy" portions were too much even for some Jews to stomach, and one
of the first, if not only group, to voice their objections against
the diary, were some Orthodox Jews who felt it gave the Jews a bad
moral image. A proper girl would not act in such a way. Whether their
objections were based on true moral grounds or for fear that the
story was letting the cat out of the bag may be debatable. Talmudic
sources are certainly not foreign to perverse sex. In any case, here
we have yet another indication telling us that Mr. Frank's mannerism
of accusing all

10

doubters as anti-Semities is not based on facts. In this manner he
has been able to stop critics from voicing their objections in the
open. Some quotations from the AFFA brochure may enlighten us further
on this subject of sex:

"Anne was thirteen when she started her diary. Six
months later she regretted not having had her first menstruation:
`Oh, I'm so longing to have one too; she wrote, it seems so
important"'(9).

Further down on the same page it states:

"Bit by bit, however, these evidences of immaturity
and of being difficult decreased. Mixed with them, yet gradually
replacing them, came the actions and reactions of a more mature
young woman. Probably the most striking measure of these changes
is her LOVE AFFAIR with Peter Van Daan."

We are told that: "Anne's need for a confidant of her own age
greatly increased, and she had her first period" (10). Henri F.
Pommer, the author of this article, first published in Judaism (A
quarterly journal of Jewish Life and Thought, Vol. 9, No. 1, Winter
Issue, 1960) assures us further that: "Any diary of a young girl who
hid in Amsterdam during the Nazi occupation, who described her first
PROTECTED LOVE AFFAIR... might well interest us" (12). He feels that
"her AFFAIR WITH PETER is THE MOST STRIKING MEASURE OF HER CHANGE
TOWARDS MATURITY" (14). It may be so for H.F. Pommer and his kind but
we doubt whether it at all was relevant to the girl in her situation.
Likely these "sexy" portions were included to make the product
saleable.

DATE ENTRIES

Perhaps not much information can be gathered by examining the
various date entries but the following observations may still be of
some help while striking some curious afterthoughts. Starting with
June - 1942 we find 6 entries (plus one double entry). July also has
6. August has only 2 entries. It seems rather strange that she should
have so few entries at the very time she so enthusiastically sets out
to write a diary. One would expect she should have made an entry for
almost every day. Seeing we are constantly reminded of "the young
talented authoress" and about all her many ambitions to write and to
become a great writer we certainly wonder why this "talented" girl
made so few entries. It doesn't make sense.

September and October have 6 entries each while November has 8.
Then follow 3 months with almost no entries at all. December has only
4 whereas January and February have even less having only 2 entries.
We have now entered a new year: 1943. March has a mere total of 6
entries headed up by three more months which again have almost no
entries: April has 3, May has 2 and June has also 2. No explanation
is given for this most peculiar way of keeping a "diary." One would
expect her to give us a hint, not only for the few days being
entered and also the reason why she did not bother making more
entries. We proceed. July has 7, August has 8, September has only 3.
October has even less, only 2 entries. November has 5. Compare the
last three with the ratio of 6-6-8 for the previous year. December
has 4. We now enter into a new year: 1944. For the first time,
starting with January we get more than 8 entries. This month has 10
and February has 10 followed up by the grand month of March which has
a total of 19 entries, the most entries ever made. Compare this with
the

11

previous year's identical months and the ratio is 2-2-6.
Interestingly enough we now get more entries while the "talented"
authoress at the same time advances in her "love affairs" with Peter
Van Daan, who like Anne is supposed to be "Jewish" (16 Febr.-44:137).
It almost appears as if the "authoress" is trying to make her story
more interesting; i.e. more saleable. In April, the month she got so
closely involved with "just cuddling each other" (17 April-44:188)
and discussing "the most intimate things" (18 April-44:189) we find
15 entries. May has 17, June has 10 followed up by July's mere 4
entries finished off by August's I entry, the month she is supposed
to have been taken away. Examining this list we are immediately
struck by a few entries the talented, productive authoress made,
especially in the beginning, while the month of March-44 has the most
entries of all, a total of 19. Whether it is only a coincidence that
the entries keep increasing as her "love affairs" become more intense
we leave unsaid. Nevertheless, we are struck by the fact that so few
entries are made and why no explanation is given for this. Just as a
last thought before leaving this issue we want to mention a curious
fact. We do not want to quarrel with the authoress but permit us to
quote her statement that:

"At Whitsun, for instance, when it was so warm,
[see: 31 May-44:215]. I stayed awake on purpose until half
past eleven one evening in order to have a good look at the moon
once by myself Alas, the sacrifice was all in vain, as THE MOON
GAVE FAR TOO MUCH LIGHT and I didn't dare risk opening the window"
(15 June-44:222).

We must state here we feel this time was a most unwise choice for
her to "have a good look at the moon for once." The moon had
previously passed its new moon stage, entering into a half moon with
the moon furthest away according to almanacs for 1944. We were not at
Amsterdam in those days to know if the moon AT ALL WAS VISIBLE;
nevertheless, the passage that "the moon gave far too much light"
seems rather odd.

USE OF NICKNAMES

The use of a constant barrage of nicknames may fit an American
audience but hardly a polite, German family from which the Franks
(German Jewish) came. That a child, and a girl at that, should go so
far as to call her own father by a nickname would be worse than an
insult to the father. Nevertheless, this American practice of being
"cute" crops up continuously in the diary and the authoress calls her
own father by his nickname "Pim" (Compare: 28 Sept.-42:30, 1
Oct.-42:33, 27 Feb.-43:59). Whether the nicknames are found in the
original we do not know but if they do appear, they indicate the girl
was a spoiled brat whose parents had neglected to inculcate common
courtesy. No decently brought up child would have used these nick
names. Possible they may be interpolations.

THE GASSINGS

For many of us who were formerly staunch believers and propagators
of the "Holocaust" and "gassing" stories it may be of interest to
find out what the diary has to say on this subject. On Friday, 9
October-42:34-5 the entry was made:

12

"Our many Jewish friends are being taken away by the
dozen. . . We assume that most of them are murdered The English
radio speaks of their being GASSED."

We should observe here that none of the Franks were "gassed" or
"murdered" but like thousands of Germans died of sickness. Anne
herself is said to ' have died of typhus. Also, on 13 Dec.-42:54 she
reports seeing "two Jews" walking by, indicating they moved freely in
spite of her previous statement they were "being taken away by the
dozen." Interestingly a Swedish news report of 1963 mentions that
Karl Silberbauer, the man who had arrested the occupants, knew
nothing about those he had arrested being sent togas chambers) at
German concentration camps. H, is alleged to have said: "We were
rather surprised to learn that it was written in The Anne Frank Diary
about Jews being gassed to death. How did the girl know about this
secret?" (ST, 1963, Nov. 22). As we can see there is a logical
explanation to this. The Franks were apparently constantly listening
to the radio programs coming from England. Likely they had plenty of
time to listen to the radio seeing they had little else to do. The
English radio programs were constantly sending out gruesome
propaganda stories about German atrocities being committed and seeing
the Franks hated the Germans they took of course these fictitious
stores to be the truth. A.R. Butz reports in his revealing book
The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century that the rabblerouser,
Thomas Mann, had already in December 1941 on BBC broadcasted that:
"In German hospitals the severly wounded, the old and feeble ARE
KILLED WITH POISON GAS - in one single institution, two to three
thousand, a German doctor said" (1977:174).

After further investigations most of us now recognize that we have
been hoodwinked. The whole thing was a bluff concocted mainly by the
Jewish propaganda machine. On Thursday, 3 February-44:133 another
entry is made where those in the "Secret Annexe" (S.A.) are supposed
to have said:

"Out of the question, the English HAVE ALWAYS TOLD THE
TRUTH over the wireless. And suppose they do exaggerate the news,
the facts are bad enough because you can't deny that many millions
of peace loving people were just simply MURDERED or GASSED in
Poland arid Russia."

What better propaganda tool could the winning side ask for than
The Diary of Anne Frank! Those wanting further information on
the gas chamber, subject should consult: A.R. Butz, op. cit,
Institute for Historical Review; Richard Harwood, Did Six Million
Really Die? The Truth At Last, also available in Swedish as
Dog Verkligen Sex Miljoner?, ISBN 91 85560 50 2; Sionismen det
Dolda F?rtrykhet, ISBN 91 85560 510; Thomas Mann, Deutsche Horer!
Fundundfunfzig Radiosendungen nach Deutschland, Bermann-Fischer
Verlag, Stockholm, Sweden, Zweite, erweiterte Ausgabe, 1945. It was
the Jewish, Bermann-Fischer Verlag who later brought out the Anne
Frank "diary" in German and who succeeded in hoodwinking a whole
world on it being an authentic document.

DAVID'S STAR MAGEN DAVID

Apparently in order to make a big issue out of the wearing the
"yellow six pointed star" the diary makes it out as if it was the
Germans who originated the idea of the star and of Jews wearing it.
A

13

footnote states after the statement "Jews must wear a yellow star"
that: "To distinguish them from others, all Jews were forced by the
Germans to wear, prominently displayed, a yellow six pointed star"
(20 June-42:3). We are told "the gaudy yellow star spoke for itself"
(9 July-42:14; compare: Dussel wearing it on his coat, 17
Nov.-42:45). The AFFA brochure has three pictures on page 18 where
the star is displayed. Observe however the first picture on the left
and you will find in the center of the picture the Magen David
prominently displayed in a "Jewish" religious service. The truth is
of course that the Magen David has for a long time been; besides the
Menorah - a candelabrum having seven (or nine) branches - the most
prominent Jewish symbol. In fact it was the Jewish leaders themselves
who demanded that Jews wear it prominently and proudly. More than six
years before Jews were forced to wear the star by law the editor of
the Zionist weekly Juedische Rundschau was the first to coin
and make popular the slogan about the yellow star which Jews were
later forced to wear: "Wear it proudly, the yellow badge" (Tragt
ihn mit Stolz, den gelben Fleck; compare EJ, Vol. 7:493, 10:463.
The same encyclop. has six pages of Magen David.) If the Red Cross
could display a cross, the Nazis their swastika, the Salvation Army
their emblems, etc., there seems little reason why Jews could not
wear their most cherished emblem without being hurt. Indeed, the very
first issue of Die Welt, Herzl's Zionist journal, bore it as
its emblem. "Israel's" national flag (formerly Zionist) maintains the
Magen David as its symbol. At a huge gathering and pageant "The
Romance of a People" in Chicago,July 3-4, 1933, the six pointed star
and the white flag of Palestine with the two blue bars and this same
star in between was most prominently exhibited (Inquire Within,
Trail of the Serpent, The Christian Book Club of America,
Calif., USA, 1969: 114-16.). Seeing most people are unaware of these
facts the Zionists have used it as evidence of their cruel
persecution. The Jehovah's Witnesses who had never stated they would
proudly wear a sign were forced to wear one. In their case it may be
said they were punished in wearing a sign but certainly not the Jews
who themselves wanted to wear it. Had Hitler meant to shame the Jews
he could have forced them to wear the traditional dunce's hat. He
would hardly ask them to wear their most cherished symbol if he had
meant to punish them by wearing it. Possibly these parts about the
"yellow star" are interpolations or at least some of them.

HATEMONGERS AND WARMONGERS

We learn a lot about the diary's real intention when we observe
how it looks at those who lost the war. The diary has been heralded
as the most truthful document coming out of the Second World War
showing the cruelties of the German people under Hitler. Obviously
one of Mr. Frank's and his cohorts' chief aims was to perpetuate hate
against the Germans; make it out as if the Jews were the only real
sufferers of these tragic events while giving an excuse to the world
for the Jews' to barbarically evict the Palestinians from their
homeland. The main reason why a world stood quietly by, abetting,
encouraging or fence watching the Jews as they invaded Palestine in
the greatest

14

racket and insidious scheme ever perpetrated on mankind, was
because they were constantly being reminded (through Jewish
propaganda who ruled, and still rule, who owned, and still
own, the mass media) about such cases - the pivotal example being
Anne Frank. Through books, newspaper articles, condensed articles in
magazines, movies, dramas, school plays, records, tourism and other
schemes the world got brainwashed hearing about Anne Frank, and still
keeps hearing about her. That is why the "legend" of Anne Frank must
never die. If it falls and dies the whole Zionistic conspiracy will
fall with it. "If you don't support us," they remind us, "you are
just as cruel and guilty as those blasted Germans who railroaded,
Anne Frank to her death and six million other Jews." The shout never
dies. It must never die. And which sensible person would want that to
happen to anyone, much less a child!

When these points are recognized the entire machination behind the
Anne Frank diary takes the pro portion of one gigantic, sickening
'example of how the "God's chosen people" take revenge on their
critics. In this spirit the diary says the "English have always told
the truth" (3 Feb.-44:133) whereas the Finns are "silly fools" (27
June-44:224). The "Internationale" is heralded with enthusiasm (10
Sept.-43:97). So are the "extra" communiques "from Stalin" (31
March-44:171). No less so is the knowledge that the "Bol shevists
really are on the way" (27 June-44:224). As can be expected the worst
lot are the Germans, those who made Jews wealthy in the first place.
The Franks had themselves made their wealth in Germany. Possibly they
came from poor Khazar background, whose family later moved into
Poland, Galicia, Hungary or Austria. The name Frank (also Franck) is
an Ashkenazic name meaning "Franconian" (Rottenberg: 218). Like so
many a poor Khazar they soon recognized that Germany was their
"Promised Land." They just were not satisfied with part of the "milk
and honey" until ALL was theirs. Possibly most of Mr. Frank's hate
against the Germans could be explained by the fact that unless some
people get all the cake they start screeching to the high heavens
blasting out they are being unjustly treated. MEY and DGD under
"Frank" report that he was a banker. The diary is quite revealing on
the fact that the Franks were wallowing in wealth while in
Germany:

"Dear Kitty, Have I ever really told you anything
about our family? I don't think I have, so I will begin now. My
father's parents WERE VERYRICH His father had worked himself right
up and his mother CAME FROM A PROMINENT FAMILY, who were ALSO RICH
So in his youth Daddy had A REAL LITTLE RICH BOY'S UPBRINGING,
parties every week, balls, festivities, beautiful girls, dinners,
a large home, etc., etc. After Grandpa's death all the money was
lost during the World War and the inflation that followed Daddy
was therefore EXTREMELY WELL BROUGHT UP and he laughed very much
yesterday when, for the first time in his fifty-five years, he
scraped out the frying pan at table MUMMY'SPARENTS WERERICH TOO
and we often listen openmouthed to stories of engagement parties
of two hundred and fifty people, private balls and dinners One
certainly could not call us rich now, but ALL MY HOPES ARE

15

PINNED ON AFTER THE WAR" (8 May-44:202; compare:
20 June-42:3).

Anne's big wish about getting rich was realized in her father who
in unison with the Zionist cause had long before decided that after
Germany's fall they should not only relentlessly smear the Germans
but that they at the same time should make money out of it. And what
a gold mine it proved to be. Anti-German films are still big incomes
to the warmongers and hatemongers. We are told that Anne is glad for
that Hitler "took away our nationality long ago" (9
Oct.-42:35) and she reminds us that "In fact, Germans and Jews are
the greatest enemies in the world"(Ibid.). "The justly
famous Diary" (AFFA:2) has other examples of hate against the
Germans: "It would be much easier and more advantageous to the
Allies if the impeccable Germans kill each other off" she is
claimed to have said (21 July-44:234). She feels that "Only a
small percentage of Dutch people are on the wrong side" (29
March44:171). The one good thing when food gets worse is "so
sabotage against the authorities steadily increases" (Ibid.).
"Speak softly at all times, by order! ALL CIVILIZED LANGUAGES ARE
PERMITTED, THEREFORE NOT GERMAN" (17 Nov.-42:46)!

In any case, the Germans are "THE CRUELEST BRUTES THAT WALK THE
EARTH" (19 Nov.-42:48). In typical priestly hypocrisy this diary
and its created Foundation will help and teach mankind "to attain the
humility which alone can make us want to listen to our fellowman"
(AFFA:3). We find it exceedingly difficult to believe that a healthy
girl at her age can be so possessed with hate and apparently even
worse portions of this kind can be found in the uncensored material
seeing we are told some passages were excluded by Mr. Frank which he
felt "might hurt other people's feelings" (AFFA: 6). We are willing
of course to concede that a young child, having been thoroughly
brainwashed by Talmudic ideals may end up with numerous aberrations
of which these are some examples but even then this seems a
bitfarfetched. An investigation of the prime source material may shed
some light on whether these portions are mere concoctions of some
other author or authors or whether she in fact wrote them.

A QUIET RACKET

One of the most peculiar contradictions in the book is the matter
of noise. On the one hand we are led to believe that the group of
eight Jews are under constant danger, risking their lives. Quietness
was an absolute requisite for the group to survive. On the other hand
we note from the diary the constant racket they made and the
boisterous atmosphere. It was by no means extraordinary but seems to
have been the order of the day. The "Van Daan Product" (17
Nov.-42:45) called "Prospectus And Guide To The `Secret Annexe"'
informs that those residing there must "speak softly" (46); yet, the
real culprits of the lot when it came to causing a racket were the
Van Daans themselves. Here is another example from the diary which
does not tolerate noise:

"Continuation of the `Secret Annexe' daily timetable.
As the clock strikes half past eight in the morning, Margot and
Mummy are jittery: `Ssh . . . Daddy, Quiet, Otto, ssh . . . Pim. '
'It is half past eight, come back here, you can't run any more
water; walk quietly!'.. . Not a drop of water, no lavatory, no
walking about,

16

everything quiet. As long as none of the office staff are
there, everything can be heard in the warehouse" (23
Aug.-43:95)

Clearly then: "everything can be heard in the warehouse." However
we do not go far to find that the very opposite is the order of the
day; the Van Daans apparently taking the lead:

"Mr. and Mrs. Van Daan have had a TERRIFIC QUARREL.
I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT BEFORE. Mummy and Daddy would
never dream of SHOUTING AT EACH OTHER" (2 Sept.-42:22).

The diary is replete with the constant quarelings between the
Jews. In another place Anne states:

"There have been RESOUNDING ROWS between Mr. and Mrs.
Van Daan... The YELLS and SCREAMS, STAMPING and ABUSE YOU
CAN'TPOSSIBLYIMAGINEIVIT WAS FRIGHTENING. My family stood at the
bottom of the stairs, holding their breath, READY IF NECESSARY TO
DRAG THEM APART. ALL THIS SHOUTING AND WEEPING and nervous tension
are so unsettling and such a strain, that in the evening I drop
into my bed crying, thanking heaven that I sometimes have half an
hour to myself" (29 Oct-43:100).

It seems as if the biggest problem was the Jews themselves and not
the Nazis. The matter is so bad that Anne is made to say some pages
after:

"We are all getting on well together FOR A CHANGE!...
we haven't had such peace in the home for AT LFA_ST HALF A YEAR"
(22 Dec.-43:109).

Unfortunately the problem persists. On Saturday, 15 January-44:122
she reports:

"There is no point in telling you EVERY TIME the exact
details of OUR ROWSANDARGUMENTS."

Apparently she is no better herself for she says:

"I . . . throw my weight about the place, am NOISY AND
BOISTEROUS, so that everyone wishes that I was out of the way"
(27 Feb:-44:142).

We are left wondering. If the group of Jews was in such a danger,
how is it that they never got detected and how could they be so
boisterous? Perhaps the most peculiar piece of information we can
gather from the diary is when we are told that the girl has a "craze
for dancing and ballet at the moment" and that she "practices dance
steps every evening dilligently" This was as late as 12 January 1944
120-1. Equally peculiar is the information that, Peter chops wood and
performs "acrobatics round the room with his cat" (10 Dec.-42:52). We
would believe that under the circumstances, if the story is to be
believed at all, these sorts of activities should be totally
prohibited at any time. Likely they do give us some insight into the
actual circumstances, indicating to us that the story about a group
of Jews in hiding for the very lives is an exaggeration.

BURGLARS COMING

In view of the fact that we are being led to believe the Germans
were constantly searching the houses and making razzias all over
Holland it may come as a surprise for readers to know how little the
diary mentions actual German raids in their own home. In fact the
diary itself contains no specific instance of Germans plundering
their home. We first hear of Germans (Austrians?) searching their
home on August 4-1944 (239). Even then, the house itself was never
plundered but only certain documents may have been searched for and
confiscated and as the story indicates, the diary, along with a pile
of other material was left unconfiscated. The major problem was not
the Germans

17

nor those Dutch who had sided with the Germans, but the indigenous
(possibly also Jewish) Dutch groups and individuals who were
constantly committing burglaries, stealing from the homes. (Compare
10 March-43:61, 25 March43:65, 16 July-43:79, 4 Aug.-43:86, 1
March-44:143, 11 April-44:177-9, 15 June-44:222). Anne's statement
that "it is not the Dutch people's fault that WE are having such a
miserable time" (AFFA:8) seems rather strange. If the burglars who
came to their home were not Dutch they may have been Jews which would
hardly make the case more sympathetic.

SOME FURTHER PECULIARITIES

It is clear that those responsible for the "diary" are from the
outset hoping that the readers are qualified idiots. We have already
shown how the readers are expected, without any hesitation, to
swallow its contents no matter how absurd the story may sound. In
this respect those responsible seem to have been fully satisfied.
Countless simpletons have swallowed its "message" as a dry sponge
sucks up water. We shall continue to give more examples of this fact
but before we do so let us get some background of Mr. O.H. Frank's
business activities. In her "convincing" attempt to explain to us
"why" the "diary" was written, Anne gives the following details about
her father:

"My father was thirty-six when he married my mother,
who was then twenty-five. My sister Margot was born in 1926 in
Frankfort on Main, I followed on June 12, 1929, and, as we are
Jewish, we emigrated to Holland in 1933, where my father was
appointed Managing Director of Travies N. V. This firm is in close
relationship with the firm of Kolen & CO. in the same
building, of which my father is a partner. In 1938 afterthe pogroms, my two uncles (my mother's brothers) escaped to
the U.S.A. (20 June 42:3).

We detect obvious interpolations in this quotation. Nothing will
convince us unless we are allowed to examine the original records,
that young Anne, under this date, should have written an historical
genealogy of her family. The swindle is far too apparent. Let us
examine another point more closely. The diary makes out as a matter
of fact, that as they were Jewish, they "emigrated to Holland:" The
statement is absurd for several reasons. First, if it was a matter of
fact that Jews already as early as 1933 should emigrate why did not
all Jews do so? We would expect that at least the wealthy should have
taken this opportunity particularly in view of the fact they had the
freedom to do so. Often it was the poor Jew who emigrated, not the
wealthy. Second, why did the "two uncles" remain in Germany? Not
until 1938 did they escape to the USA. Third, why did not the Franks
also escape to the USA? Having escaped Germany before the uncles they
seemingly should have been more aware of the risks that the uncles
who remained in Germany up to 1938. Fourth, we know that even after
Hitler took power, 10,000 Jews immigrated to Germany between 1933 37.
In 1937, of 1,200 immigrants, 97 came from Palestine! The story now
becomes rather interesting when we know this fact. First, the reason
given for their immigration to Holland in 1933 "as we are Jewish"
becomes foolish in view of this fact. Second, we must now ask the
question, why did the Franks emigrate? Mr. Frank is preciously silent
about himself and about the details we would want him to explain
before we would accept his story. What really were his activities and
how exactly did he, his family and relatives acquire their huge

18

wealth? It is pity Mr. Frank has not let us know more about
himself. After coming to Holland the family was still well off. Anne
writes:

"Yes, WE ARE LUCKIER THAN MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. It is
quite safe here, and we are, so to spear LIVING ON CAPITAL"
(13 Jan:-43:56, compare 8 May-44:202).

Perhaps this explains why the family did not bother to "flee" to
the USA, Switzerland or elsewhere. About the business Anne informs us
that:

"Daddy has been at home a lot lately, as there is
nothing for him to do at business; it must be rotten to feel so
superfluous. Mr. Koophuis has taken over Travies and Mr. Kraler
the firm Kolen & Co." (5 July-42:11)

The big concern for the father was to avoid their private
belongings being seized by the Germans, for as Anne tells us:

"We don't want our belongings to be seized by the
Germans." (11).

If it is true that the Germans were incessantly hunting for JEWISH
belongings we start to wonder. Along with the Franks there were four
other people. Why, of all places did the father choose to make a
"hiding place" out of the very same building where he had his own
business office (9 July-42:14)? The building was also supposed to
have been a storage place for spices. The place was therefore not
only an office but also a warehouse for Mr. Frank's spices for as the
AFFA brochure itself wants to remind us: "It is important to know
that Mr. Frank was trading in spices at the time, and that the SPICES
WERE STORED IN THE WAREHOUSE" (27). The argument that may be brought
up that others were now running the business explains nothing as Jews
were allowed to work; the "Jewish chemist and dispenser" who worked
at their business proves this fact. The whole story about the "Secret
Annexe" reaches the point of absurdity when we remember the above
facts. How could the Germans, who were after the Franks and others,
and whom, we are told, so meticulously searched out all secrets
leaving nothing undone, have missed the "Secret Annexe" or even the
whole house for that matter? What glories are left of this "document"
are smothered when we examine these points. If the SS had "sent a
call up notice for Daddy" (8 July-42:12) as Margot said; why would
Daddy decide to move into HIS OWN OFFICE? He could hardly have chosen
a more unsuitable place. While at this point, not even from their own
Jewish people could they feel safe for it is reported:

"The days are becoming very quiet here. LEWIN, a small
JEWISH chemist and dispenser, works for Mr. Kraler in the kitchen.
He knows the whole building well and therefore we are always
afraid that he'll take it into his head to have a peep in the old
laboratory. We are as quiet as mice. Who, three months ago, would
ever have guessed that quicksilver Anne would have to sit still
for hours and, what's more could?" (1 Oct.-42:33).

Could it be that Jewish Lewin was peacefully working at the
warehouse for the same reason that thousands of Jews were left
untouched also in Germany during the entire war? The fact that this
Jewish person worked there makes the whole story the more fantastic.
May not the fact the Franks chose their own office and warehouse as
their "hiding place" indiciate to us how lenient the Germans in fact
were about the Jewish questions at the time? We may just as well
believe that Frank's real reason for not moving to the warehouse was
not on account of the Germans but so that they could prevent
burglaries

19

which according to the diary constantly occured. It may also be
that Mr. Frank wanted to keep an eye on the new storekeepers, Mr.
Kraler and Mr. Koophuis. Thus the story about the "Secret Annexe" may
just prove to be an invention for the real underlying cause: In order
that they could keep an eye on their business. However, it is not
enough that we are to accept this drivel about the "Secret Annex"
story.

Please bear with us now as we unravel yet another fabulous tale
from our "document:" The following is reported:

"You'd never guess what has happened to us now. The
owner of these premises has sold the house without informing
Kraler and Koophuis. One morning the new owner arrived with an
architect to have a look at the house. Luckily, Mr. Koophuis was
present arid SHOWED THE GENTLEMEN EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE
"SECRETANNEXE. "He professed to have forgotten THE KEY OF THE
COMMUNICATING DOOR. THE NEW OWNER DIDN'T QUESTION ANY FURTHER. It
will be all right as long as he doesn't come back and want to see
the "Secret Annexe" ; because then it won't look too good for
us. (27 Feb:-43:60).

First we are to believe that the owner sold the house without
prior inspection of the premises he was selling, then, that he had
not informed those renting the warehouse about it being for sale and
later sold. We are further expected to believe that the new owner
buying the house did not inspect it before buying it. If that isn't
asking the readers too much they are now on top of it all supposed to
swallow the notion that neither the architect, who should have seen
the blueprints of the house, nor the new owner was interested in
inspecting the entire warehouse! Why for instance, did they not get
suspicious about the "cupboard" in front of the door (21 Aug:-42:21)
and that the step in front of it had been removed (21)? More of this
in our next heading. That the new owner should be so disinterested in
an entire section of his newly bought warehouse seems incredible even
if we were to accept that he shortly afterwards would see to it that
keys were available so he could enter the place. Several more
questions should be asked. What about cigarette odors? The males
inside the "Secret Annexe" smoked (except Peter). Plenty of food was
stored in the attic like peas, beans and 150 cans of vegetables
(Nov:-42:42). Sausages were also stored there (10 March-43:61). Would
not the new owner wonder why all this food was stored there? Even if
the original diary did contain this section we still must question
the story's credibility. While we may believe in "God's providence"
we still feel the "document" seems a bit farfetched.

THE MYSTERIOUS DOOR

We now come to another rather puzzling matter; that about the
entrance, the door that leads into the "Secret Annexe." All visitors
to the Anne Frank House are constantly reminded about the ingenious
"swinging bookcase" which constituted the actual entrance. The
"mystery door" no doubt puts an air of suspense and excitement over
it. We are in no position to know whether this is but a story that
was made up afterwards and whether it at all existed during their
alleged confinement. But in view of all these discrepancies some
observations are relevant. The first time we meet it, it is described
as "that plain gray door":

"A wooden staircase leads from the downstairs passage
to the next floor (B). There is a small landing at the

20

top. There is A DOOR AT EACH END OF THE LANDING, the
left one leading to a storeroom at the front of the house and to
the attics. One of those really steep Dutch staircases runs from
the side to the other door opening on to the street (C). The
RIGHT-HAND DOOR leads to our "Secret Annexe." NO ONE WOULD EVER
GUESS that there would be so many rooms hidden behind THAT PLAIN
GRAY DOOR. There's a little STEP INFRONT OF THE DOOR and then you
are inside" (9 July-42:15).

Let us pause here for a moment before we move on. Why would a girl
who had left to go to Holland from Germany in 1933 (20 June-42:3) and
who was then ONLY ABOUT FOUR YEARS OLD talk about "one of those
really steep Dutch staircases"? Let us not talk about the fact that a
girl would hardly speak in this way but the statement becomes rather
ludicrous when we remember that she hardly would have had a chance
(and interest) to compare the Dutch staircases with other countries'.
Furthermore, why improve the entrance door seeing that "no one would
ever guess that there would be so many rooms" hidden behind "that
plain gray door"? Would then not an alteration of it only bring forth
some real causes for suspicion? We will go more into this point as we
move on. Let us however continue on with the next description; the
alteration of the actual entrance into the "Secret Annexe" which was
supposed to be an improvement in spite of the above objections we
have raised:

"THE ENTRANCE TO OUR HIDING PLACE HAS NOW BEEN
PROPERLY CONCEALED. Mr. Kraler thought it would be better to put a
CUPBOARD IN FRONT OF OUR DOOR (because a lot of houses are being
searched [observe not for Jews but stolen goods, Anne's
ownbicycle had previously been stolen: 24 June-42:7]
for hidden bicycles), but OF COURSE [why of course in view of
the above?] IT HAD TO BE A MOVEABLE CUPBOARD THAT CAN OPEN
LIKE A DOOR. Mr. Vossen made the whole thing. We had already let
him into the secret and he can't do enough to help. If we want to
go downstairs, we have to first bend down and then jump, because
THE STEP HAS GONE. The first three days we were all going about
with masses of lumps on our foreheads, because we all knocked
outselves against the low doorway. Now we have nailed a cloth
filled with wool against the low doorway. Let's see if that
helps!" (21 Aug:-42:21).

Bear in mind now what our previous quotation stated. When the new
owner along with his architect inspected the premises they were shown
EVERYTHING except the "Secret Annexe." We were told that Mr. Koophuis
"PROFESSED TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THE KEY OF THE COMMUNICATING DOOR." But
not only had the actual door gone, having been replaced by a
"cupboard" but the knowledge that such a door existed was supposed to
have been a secret. In spite of this, if we are to believe this
story, the two gentlemen had no difficulties in observing "the secret
hiding place"! Two photographs of the contraption with the "swinging
bookcase" are shown in the AFFA brochure (27). The fact remains that
we were told that this improvement was made specifically TO HIDE THE
FACT THAT THERE WAS A DOOR! So how could Koophuis have told them he
had forgotten the key to a door where there was no door? The whole
nonsense becomes apparently ludicrous when we remember the point,
that what Koophuis was doing, was, that he in fact is supposed to
have said that he had no key for an open

21

"bookcase" to be opened, which bookcase in the beginning never had
a keyhole but could only be opened from the inside! (BG:2). Let Mr.
Frank and his likes try to untangle the dilemma. This information
makes us wonder whether there at all was such a "secret entrance
door." It may have come up afterwards to make the story more dramatic
and credible. It would place an air of mystery and excitement over
the story.

This is not all by a long stretch. Mr. Vossen, Elli Vossen's
father (9 July42:15) who by this time is supposed to have been let in
on the secret is allegedly the one who "made the whole thing." Would
not an awful racket have been caused in making such an alteration?
Remember the girl admits that:

"There are some large business premises on the right
of us, and on the left a furniture workshop; there is no one there
after working hours BUT EVEN SO, SOUNDS COULD TRAVEL THROUGH THE
WALLS. We have FORBIDDEN MARGOT TO COUGH AT NIGHT, although she
has a bad cold . . It is the SILENCE that frightens me SO IN THE
EVENINGS AND AT NIGHT ... We have to WHISPER AND TREAD LIGHTLY
during the day, otherwise the people in the warehouse might HEAR
US."

Ironically in the next sentence the girl says: "Someone is
CALLING ME" (11 July-42:19). Now, someone may object Mr. Vossen
did his carpentry work in the vening or at night. But note the above
citation of the noise problems that "even so" after working hours the
noise could travel through the walls. When Margot, in spite of her
having a "bad cold" was not allowed to cough even AT NIGHT we are
indeed left confounded. The story's fabric simply does not make
sense. Alterations were apparently also made by making the entrance
smaller. We must now ask ourselves about the owner of the house. The
warehouse had not yet been sold to the new owner so the alterations
were made prior to the house being sold. What would the owner think
if he saw this contraption? Had he not been suspicious before he
certainly should have wondered where his former door had gone, not to
speak about an entire part of his warehouse. What he now would see
was only a "cupboard" in front of him. What about the "Jewish chemist
and dispenser," Mr. Lewin, who knew "the whole building" (1
Oct.-42:33)? Would he not have wondered about where the door had
disappeared to? Where the "step" had gone? And what about all the
others who did know the house, who were working there or paid the
house a visit? What about all the repairs that went on with the
house, the repairs that went on with the toilet inside the "Secret
Annexe"? What about the fire department and others who had a right to
inspect the premises? In view of all these facts it would seem that
this "secret door," instead of helping them, would have been one of
the silliest inventions they could have made. They would have run the
risk of being even more easily detected (if that really was of any
importance to them). On this premise and on relevant points we may
safely dismiss the "secret door" story. It may simply have been
conjured up by those wanting to capitalize on a story. If part of the
story is true we must say they only have to blame themselves for
being caught having made such a foolish invention that could do
nothing else but throw suspicion

FURTHER DOOR DIFFICULTIES

Seeing that the story about the "hidden door" has an important
bearing on the amount of fabric of truth

22

in the story we would benefit by examining this problem a little
further. It is claimed in the BG:3 leaflet: "From the day of arrest
until now the ANNEX HAS BEEN LEFT UNCHANGED." However, there are
plenty of evidences indicating the citation is a bald faced lie. If
the entrance has been altered, then the perpetrators of the hoax have
tampered with the most important part of the "Secret Annexe"
story. In their twisted mass of lies and half truths the perpetrators
of the hoax may argue that what has not been changed concerns, not
the entrance, but what was behind the entrance. If so, they only
prove their own impudence. Besides, we have no reason to believe that
what was behind the entrance has not also been altered to a greater
or lesser degree. In a news report in *ST, 1958, June 30 ("Anne Frank
Pa Film"), it is stated that George Stevens who produced the film
The Diary Of Anne Frank for Twentieth Century Fox was
"permitted to bring the building back to its previous condition" at
the time they lived there. Clearly then the building, including the
"Secret Annexe" has been ALTERED. Schnabel reports that when he
visited the premises the bookcase had been removed. Where it was he
does not state. In fact he leaves all important questions out or
tries to excuse them. He states that only the warped hinges remained
(5:78). Again, another testimony (for what it is worth), showing
alterations had been made. Really this tells us nothing. His
observation that the warped hinges were the only things left, is no
proof that they belonged to a moveable bookcase. They may just as
well have belonged to that "plain gray door."

Let us continue now with the GB leaflet. It states about the
door:

"THE DOOR LEADING INTO THE ANNEX WAS SO CLEVERLY
CONCEALED FROM THE OUTSIDE BY THE BOOKCASE which Anne describes in
her Diary that NO ONE COULD SUSPECT THAT IT EXISTED. The door was
HELD IN PLACE FROM THE INSIDE BY A HOOK which could ONLYBE
UNFASTENED BY THE INMATES OF THE ANNEX. It is beyond this door
that the annex really begins." (2).

Here we have an official description of the contraption. However
as already stated, the door was so easily detected by the new owner
(apparently he did not even ask if there was a door there) for he had
asked that the door be opened even though it had no keyhole and could
be opened only from the inside!

Even the "carpenter, or whatever you call him" who came to "fill"
the "five fire extinguishers in the house" (20 Oct.-42:37) apparently
knew there was a door there. The carpenter who had "knocked at our
door," the story tells, thus indicating there was a DOOR there, was
unable to get in. Later Mr. Koophuis came and said:

"'Open the door, it's only me.'" Our story
continues: "We opened it immediately. THE HOOK WHICH HOLDS THE
CUPBOARD, WHICH CAN BE UNDONE BY PEOPLE WHO KNOWTHESECRET, had got
jammed That was why no one had been able to warn us about the
carpenter. The mart had now gone downstairs and Koophuis wanted to
fetch Elli, BUT COULDN'T OPEN THE CUPBOARD AGAIN" (Ibid.).

The story is indeed confusing to say the least for here it seems
to indicate that the door could in fact be opened from the OUTSIDE by
those who knew the secret. Possibly by some type of contraption the
cupboard was fastened to the door. By removing the cupboard the door
could be opened from the

23

outside. This seems to be a logical explanation. However, if so,
the door to the annex has not "been left unchanged." Today it is a
whole, swinging unit. That the door could be opened from the outside
maybe futher indicated from the following:

"Then Miep went upstairs with Dussel under the pretext
that the private office was needed for something, OPENED THE
SWINGING CUPBOARD, and stepped insdie before the eyes of the
dumbfounded Dussel." (17 Nov.-42:45).

Likewise the following may indicate this:

"Kraler comes helter-skelter up stairs - a short, firm
knock ON THE DOOR and in he comes rubbing his hands"
(Aug.5-43:88; regarding the "swinging cupboard" compare April
11-44:178 and July 8-44:228).

The preceding indicates also it may have been a "plain gray door"
(9 July-42:15) and nothing more. Compare also the remark that "the
police rattled the cupboard door" (11 April-44:180; compare 183).
Here is confusion galore!

Frankly the story of the Franks does not convince us and we want
to be frank with Mr. Frank that unless he comes up with some real
sound explanations that can be tested and verified the whole story of
"Anne Frank" seems most suspicious. Why for instance did the
carpenter who was to fill the five fire extinguishers not demand to
get into the annex? It happened on 20 Oct.-42. Not before 4
Aug.-1944, were they detected yet we are to believe no more
inspections were made after this. It seems only reasonable to
conclude that at least one of the inspectors came inside the annex.
The fact that an entire part of the building was completely closed to
them should have brought questions in their or his mind. The man or
men, we should not forget, may very well have seen the place before.
If so, would not the alterations have seemed most strange? An
investigation into the actual handwriting may give us additional
clues. Until then we must regard the story as pure fantasy, mingled
with whatever bits and pieces of truth there are.

The AFFA:27 brochure states that: "The `Secret Annexe' BEHIND the
bookcase is just as it was" thereby perhaps giving them a safeguard,
indicating the thing IN FRONT; i.e. the door itself has been altered
to make a dramatic thing out of something quite ordinary. Two more
points should be considered before we leave. If Schnabel is right in
his assumption it seems as if the bookcase was supported by hinges
for he reports that when the "corporal" pushed the bookcase it gave
way, stating (he is citing Kraler's letter to him) "perhaps the hook
had not been properly fastened" (8:125). This is contradicted again
by the very same "corporal" in an article we have before us where the
corporal is quoted as having said that one of the men pushed away the
bookcase. No mention is made of it being on any hinges. Interestingly
enough the article also mentions that Karl Silberbauer, the name of
the "corporal" termed it a high bookcase placed in front of
the opening (*ST,1963, Nov. 22). Possibly then the entrance had not
been made smaller and the bookcase which is there today is an altered
product. No honest person can put credence in these constantly
shifting stores besides it would be impossible with all the numerous
factors contradicting each other. The swindle is obvious. It is up to
us to try and join the pieces together so we can determine where the
truth possibly may lie. Much more we cannot do under the
circumstances and in view of all the

24

alterations that have been made.

THE SECRET ANNEXE

Another invention seems to be the explanation: "why the German
police could not see the house lying at the back, through the
warehouse windows." It is claimed that the Germans got so bewildered
and confused due to the "topography of the house" and so they missed
it. They claim: "The Germans must have felt the same, especially as
this type of building was quite unknown to them" (AFFA:27). The
essence of the assumption is that we are made to believe the police
were Germans and being Germans and unused to Dutch homes they missed
the "Secret Annexe" of the warehouse. Apparently Mr. Frank had made
George Stevens believe that the Gestapo, "Sergeant Silverbauer, of
the Green Police, and four subordinates" were Germans and "Nazi
soldiers" whose "mission was to destroy" (Cardinal ed: preface). The
information Schnabel gives in his book flatly contradicts this.
There, no mention is made that their "mission was to destroy" and it
is evident by reading his book that nothing in the warehouse got
destroyed. Rather we are told the group was quietly allowed to take
their belongings with them. The leader told them: "You got plenty of
time" (8:130). Kraler was even allowed to fetch his sandwiches while
Miep was allowed to telephone (8:130 1). The information the AFFA
brochure gives of the Germans being so confused on account of the
warehouse topography is neither convincing nor is it supported by
other information the Foundation and Mr. Frank have given out. What
would indicate to us that only the GERMAN police would search the
homes? The explanation they give was likely invented so they could
stifle sound objections. In almost every instance the diary refers to
the POLICE it refers to the DUTCH police, not the German Gestapo
(Compare 29 March-44:171, 11 April-44:179 81, 6 May-44:200). The
indigenous Dutchman was the main group of the police. Outsiders did
of course supervise investigations but it was still the Dutch
themselves who carried out the search.

Apparently Anne could equate the Gestapo with the Dutch police.
She writes that she "could see us all being taken away by the
Gestapo" (11 April-44:179) and being "questioned by the Gestapo"
(Ibid: 180). However she recognizes these to be Dutch people for she
writes:

"I prepared myself for the return of the POLICE, then
we'd have to say that we were hiding; THEY WOULD EITHER BE GOOD
DUTCH PEOPLE, then we'd be saved, or N.S.B. ers, then we'd have to
bribe them." (Ibid.)

Hence the AFFA's argument becomes ludicrous. The Franks knew most
of the police were Dutch and the Dutch people were well aware of
these types of houses (Compare Schnabel 8:128). Even Schnabel
confirms the fact that the police were Dutch. In Kraler's letter to
Schnabel he mentions four policemen only one of which was "Green"
police.

Schnable calls the "Green" policeman "Silberthaler." George
Stevens in his "preface" calls him for "Silverbauer:" A news report
in *SI,1963, Nov. 22, calls him "Karl Silberbauer," an Austrian,
hence not a German (Compare Schnabel 6:96). The article states
further that Silverbauer took 8 DUTCH police with him. Surely then,
to Dutch people there was nothing unusual at all about this
particular house. The BG leaflet states definitely that:

"The house as it stands today was built in 1635 IN THE
STYLE OF THAT PER IOD. In view of the transportation facil-

25

ities existing at the time, IT WASBUILT LIKE MANY OF
THE AMSTERDAM MERCHANTS' HOUSES, beside a canal so goods could be
brought by boat to the doorsteps" (1).

Does this not indicate there was nothing unusual about the
construction? We have already mentioned it seems farfetched how an
entire part of the house on the second and third floor can disappear.
On the third floor the kitchen and laboratory were located. Inside
the "Secret Annexe" was also located a toilet which pipes went down
to the toilet below; another reason indicating to us that fictitious
inventions have been given to "explain" the story. Far from the
construction being anything unusual, The Christian Science
Monitor's (1977, July 4:23) article "Amsterdam: where the Frank
family hid from the Gestapo" states:

"The Anne Frank House at 263 Prinsen gracht . . . Nor
is it a house, really. Their hiding place was the back section of
a canal bank building where Anne's father, Otto Frank, had
operated a spice import business. (MANY CANAL BANK STRUCTURES ARE
LONG AND NARROW, WITH A FRONT SECTION OVERLOOKING THE CA NAL AND
AN "ACHTERHUIS" BACKHOUSE fronting on a court yard or street.)
From the outside, the Anne Frank House LOOKS LIKE HUNDREDS OF
OTHER STRUCTURES THAT LINE AMSTERDAMS 70 MILES OF CANALS."

The "explanation" therefore which the official booklet gives does
not support known facts. Rather it seems to be given as a smoke
screen for gullible believers.

COVERED WINDOWS

We have brought up several objections that have completely
shattered the veracity of the Anne Frank story. The "document" is
clearly a swindle and it rests on a hodgepodge of confusion and
conflicting claims. But we need not end here. Let us investigate
another most perplexing issue. It is related to what we just
previously have written. The issue concerns the argument that the
"Secret Annexe" could not be seen "through the warehouse windows" and
so the "German police could not see the house lying at the back." The
point is emphasized that the windows "from the little landing" were
covered with "paper with a chequered pattern" which "had been stuck
onto the window panes, to keep out the daylight." Let us quote the
important place exactly as it appears in the official AFFA
brochure:

"Perhaps a few extra explanations would be helpful at
this stage. You may be wondering now perhaps, why the German
police could not see the house lying at the back, through the
warehouse windows. Everyone knows that the entrance to the "Secret
Annexe" from the little landing was hidden behind a swinging
bookcase. But even so, why couldn't the Annexe be seen through the
windows? It is important to know that Mr. Frank was trading in
spices at the time, and that the spices were stored in the
warehouse. Spices must be kept in the dark and to save hanging
curtains, paper with a chequered pattern had been stuck onto the
window panes, to keep out the daylight. Therefore, although you
saw windows, you could not see through them, and everyone took it
for granted that they overlooked thegarden. Perhaps this does not
strike you, looking at the plan, but as you wander through the
house, with all its passages, steps, doors and stairs, you will
have soon lost your idea of the topography of the house."

A similar claim is made in the BG leaflet:

"Leaving the documentation rooms you enter A SMALL
RECESS which is, in

26

fact, the connecting passage between fronthouse and
backhouse. (See Plan fig. 3). On the right hand side you will see
the window which looks onto the inner courtyard. THE PANES STILL
BEAR TRACES OF THE PAPER WHICH WAS PASTED ON TO PREVENT LIGHT FROM
SPOILING THE SPICES. THIS MEANT, OF COURSE, THAT THE ANNEX WAS
HIDDEN FROM THE PRYING EYES OF UN AUTHORIZED VISITORS"
(2).

Several problems arise however with this explanation. The "little
landing" (AFFA:27), "small landing" (9 July-42-15) or "small recess"
(BG:2) was hardly the place used where Mr. Frank would store his
spices, therefore, there was no reason to cover the panes with
anything. Spices are usually kept in drawers, wooden containers, jars
or cans, thereby protecting them not so much from light as from
giving out odors and absorbing odors. That the "little landing" was
used as a storage place is ludicrous, to say the least, as very
little could be stored there. Fire regulations would further require
that nothing be stored there and that the place should be kept clear
and bright. It would hardly be adviseable to keep these panes covered
as the spot was generally well shaded due to the surrounding high
walls. Covering the panes would only necessitate that artificial
light would be used. In turn, that would throw suspicion, for people
on the outside could then see the light. Keeping the windows
uncovered would have been best. We will also point out that if Mr.
Frank stored his spices there, the only place apparently where the
windows were covered in this way, he would have gone broke as an
importer of spices or he would have to receive his income from other
sources. There are other arguments in favor of our conclusion. Why,
for instance, were not the windows in "the large office" which was
"very big, VERY LIGHT, AND VERY FULL" (9 July-42:15) covered with
paper? If darkness was of so much importance to Frank why did he not
cover those windows where the spices were located instead of covering
windows where they were not located? If he really was worried about
the light why then did he not keep his spices in the: "small DARK
ROOM containing the safe, a wardrobe, and a LARGE CUPBOARD leads to a
small somewhat DARK SECOND OFFICE" (Ibid.)? Would these places
not have been more appropriate? No mention is made that any spices
were kept here (Compare 7 Dec.-42:51). If so, the introduction on pp.
14 17 would have been an excellent place to tell about it. No mention
is made in this introduction that even one spice was kept at the
"little landing." The photographs in the AFFA booklet (27) show
office files. Seeing no spices were kept there why cover the panes?
Why were just the panes at the "small landing" covered? Anne
says:

"We are very nervous in other ways, too, that
neighbors might HEAR us or SEE SOMETHING GOING ON." (11
July-42:19; compare this with Schnabel 6:101 where he says
"suddenly the tree outside rattled by a wind gust and a distant
car was heard." If noises penetrated the walls of the warehouse so
easily it would have been suicidal to move in there.)

In other words, the windows could hardly have been covered with
papers. They let the sun shine in "through an open window in the
attic" (21 Aug.-42:22) where food was stored. Schnabel says that from
the attic one could watch into the rooms on the other side (5:82). If
one could do so then those people could also look into the windows of
the warehouse. The "front office" where apparently most spices were
kept was,

27

as we have already indicated, a "very light" room. Margot and Anne
had later chosen the "front office" for their scrubs and Anne
says:

"The curtains there are DRAWNON SATURDAY AFTERNOONS,
so we wash ourselves in semi darkness" (29 Sept.-42:32). She wrote
later. "I'm sitting cozily in the MAIN OFFICE, LOOKING OUTSIDE
through a slit in the curtain. It is dusk but STILL JUST LIGHT
ENOUGH TO WRITE TO YOU" (13 Dec.-42:53).

We shall go further into the windows being covered afterwards but
sufficient is to say that the above information is rather peculiar if
Frank really was so concerned about his spices being protected from
light. Could it be that the explanation about the panes at the
"little landing" being covered came up in order to make the story
more credible and dramatic about the "Secret Annexe"? It seems to us,
if Frank really was so worried about his spices he ought to have been
much more concerned about cigarette smoke which really affects
spices. Yet he never did anything about that and he himself smoked.
It becomes clear that Frank's reason why the German police could not
see the "Secret Annexe" does not make sense. It does however give us
another important clue that the story is a conglomeration of fact and
fiction, mostly fiction. Likely the story about the panes being
covered was invented afterwards to throw action and suspense on it
and to ward off possible objections. The real reason of course why
the German police could not find the "Secret Annexe" was simply due
to the fact they hadn't bothered to search the place. If you don't
search for a thing it is logical you don't find it. When at last they
did look for it, they also found it. So simple may the truth be. So
simple in fact that few people have thought about it.

SOMETHING MORE THAN SMOKE SCREENS

Another devastating blow to the story is our knowledge that the
adults apparently were heavy smokers. Some points that may be touched
on are: Odor the risk of detection, visible signs of smoke, fire
risks, police finding a storage of tobacco, telltales, and the fact
that people starving would hardly spend their money on tobacco.
Before we briefly touch on these points and the risks they entail let
us see how the family were standing on the matter of tobacco.

2 March-44:145, Peter "told me how often his parent
quarrel over politics, cigarettes, and all kinds of things." 14
March-44:154: "Mr. Van Daan: `I must smoke and smoke and smoke..
.' . . . But if he hasn't anything to smoke, then nothing is
right."

That Van Daan seems to have been a chain smoker is quite obvious.
However, even Mrs. Frank smoked for Anne reports of her mother
saying:

"If I were Mrs. Van Daan I would have put a stop to
Mr. Van Daan's EVERLASTING SMOKING a long time ago. But now IMUST
definitely HAVE A CIGARETTE, because my nerves are getting the
better of me."

Apparently all the adult male members smoked. Anne reports of
Dussel, Mr. Van Daan and her father that these "gentlemen puff at
their pipes" (27 March-44:168). Later on she writes: "The men smoked
non stop" (11 April-44:180). Under the same date she writes Miep and
Henk brought them "cigarettes, tobacco, an ash tray" (182, compare 8
May-44:203). On June 16 -44 she reports that Mrs. Van Daan was
afraid that her husband is

28

smoking all the fur coat money away" (223).

Above citations settle the issue. Heavy smoking went on inside the
house. Let us now reflect for a moment. The issue of "odor" brings up
the question why Mr. Frank, being so concerned about the light and
his spices at a place where no spices were stored; why he was not
equally concerned about his spices being affected by tobacco odor and
smoke. And what about the odor leaving a telltale sign of people
being there? Surely, if hiding was the great issue involved, the
smell of tobacco would give them away sooner or later. Why did Mr.
Frank choose Mr. Van Daan and Dussel as co dwellers knowing they
smoked? The house could be raided at any moment. The "Prospectus and
Guide To The Secret Annexe" stated that "Alcoholic Beverages" were
allowed "only with doctor's prescription" (17 Nov.-42:46). No mention
is made of tobacco being prohibited. All smokers and conscious non
smokers are aware that tobacco smoke causes quite a lot of visible
smoke. Here we have another reason indicating to us the inmates were
not particularly bothered about being detected. The noise of tobacco
coughs is obvious. Telltale signs of ashes, ash trays, cigarette
butts, matches etc. would indicate people were living there. The fire
risk is obvious, particular in a warehouse which had a laboratory.
The risk of the police finding a storage of tobacco is equally
obvious. Why people who really are in need and risking their very
lives would spend their money on tobacco is equally strange. Their
sufferings seem most luxurious. Indeed the "Secret Annexe" story
appears positively unconvincing. No thinking persons in danger of
their lives would take such obvious risks.

WINDOW, WINDOW, ON THE WALL WHAT IS BEHIND YOU
ALL?

Here we shall ponder over the points why only the panes at the
"little landing" were covered with paper, where no spices were
stored, whereas apparently, all other windows were never covered with
paper in spite of spices likely being stored there. We will also
ponder over how people, especially the police, could avoid noticing
them living there. The credibility of the story receives further
blows when we consider the fact that it would have been simply
impossible to avoid noticing them. We shall make some quotations from
the diary, interrupting here and there with brief comments. The
quotations speak for themselves.

20 Oct.-42:378: "There was only one small
interruption. Daddy's lamp blew a fuse, and all of a sudden we
were sitting in darkness."

Would not outsiders have noticed the lamp?

"Miep and Henk Van Santen stayed over for the night."

Could not observers have noticed they had entered the house but
never left it?

"Peter was given a "lighter" on his birthday." (9
Nov.-42:42).

Would that have been a wise choice in view of the light causing
attraction; besides the fire hazard?

28 Nov.-42:49: "We have used TOO MUCH ELECTRICITY,
MORE THAN OUR RATION. Result: the utmost economy and the prospect
of having it cut off. No light for a fortnight; a pleasant
thought, that, but who knows, perhaps it won't happen after all!
It's too dark to read

29

in the afternoons after four or half past. We pass the
time in all sorts of crazy ways... Yesterday evening I discovered
something new: to peer through a powerful pair of field glasses
into the LIGHTED ROOMS of the houses at the back. In the daytime
we can't allow even as much as a centimeter's chink to appear
between our curtains, but it can't do any harm after dark. I never
knew before that neighbors could be such interesting people. At
any rate, ours are. I found one couple having a meal, one family
was in the act of showing a home movie; and the dentist opposite
was just attending to an old lady, who was awfully scared."

This can be compared with Schnabel where he mentions about the
same thing and says that one can look from the attic into the rooms
on the other side (5:82).

7 Dec.-42:50-1 we learn that for Chanuka, candles were lit.
Observe what Anne writes:

"Because of the shortage of candles we only had them
alight for ten minutes, but it is all right as long as you have
the song."

Would lighting candles and SINGING A SONG be wise if they were
hunted like animals?

10 Dec.-42:52: "Pim, who was sitting on a chair in a
beam of sunlight that shone through the window. . . Peter was
doing acrobatics round the room with his cat. . . Mummy was
ironing."

Besides the fact that the window panes were clear we notice the
noise of Peter performing "acrobatics" while his mother was ironing,
perhaps using an old fashioned iron that had to be heated over the
fire.

About Dussel, Anne writes:

"He makes me furious, on Sundays especially, when he
turns the lighton early to do his EXERCISES. It seems to
take simply hours." (22 Dec.-42:55).

10 March-43:61: "A short circuit" interrupted the family "last
evening." Candles were instead used. However the shooting outside
provoked the father to extinguish it. The mother felt otherwise:

"Mummy jumped out of bed and, to Pim's annoyance, lit
the candle. When he complained her answer was firm: `After all,
Anne's not exactly a veteran soldier.' And that was the end of
it."

Further down on the same page it says:

"Peter went up to the attic with a torch."

18 May-43:72: "Mummy shut the window last night because of
all the banging... Pim turned on the lamp."

Would not the opening and closing of windows at nights when no one
was supposed to be inside the warehouse attract suspicion?

4 Aug.-43:86: "Half past eleven. The bathroom door
CREAKS. A narrow strip of LIGHT falls into the room." Peter
offers himself to look into the "main office" where most of the
spices were kept and Anne writes:

"He crouches in front of the door to make himself as small
as possible and crawls towards the steel lockers on hands and
knees, SO AS NOT TO BE SEEN FROM OUTSIDE" (20 Aug.-43:95).

An almost similar happening is reported by Schnabel, only that it
was Anne who crouched so that no one COULD SEE HER FROM THE ROAD
(6:102). He reports also that Elli's father later looked into the
warehouse through the windows but he could see no one inside (8:139).
Clearly the windows were not covered to protect the spices.

30

23 Feb-44:141, Anne "looked outside right into the
depth of Nature. 19 March-44:159: "After the dishes were done, I
stood by the window in his parent's room awhile for the look of
things, but it wasn't long before I went to Peter. He was standing
on the left side of the OPEN WINDOW, I went and stood on the right
side, AND WE TALKED. It was much easier to talk beside the open
window in the semidarkness than in bright light, and I believe
Peter felt the same."

Would standing by an open window and talking be a wise thing to
do? 20 March-44:161, Peter said: "`Then we'll go downstairs,'
he answered, `and look at the moon from there. "' 11 April-44:183:
"Peter isn't allowed to have his window open at nights any more."

18 April-44:189: "Our chestnut tree is already quite
greenish and you can even SEE little blooms here and there."

27 April-44:191: "Next, it's... that we can't look out of
the windows."

Clearly the windows WERE NOT COVERED with paper.

27 April-44:193: "At half past eight I stood up and
went to the window, where we always say good bye. . . And what do
I have to face, when I reach the bottom of the staircase? BRIGHT
LIGHTS, questions, and laughter."

Staying beside windows and bright lights doesn't seem fitting for
people in hiding.

31 May-44:215 it says at a time of heat wave: "on
Tuesday the windows could be opened again at last.. . in the
afternoon when the windows had to be closed . . . windows can't be
opened, and we, wretched outcasts, sit here suffocating."

Windows were thus opened and closed at will. The trouble was not
the police but the temperature.

15 June-44:222: "as the moon gave far too much light
and I didn't dare risk opening the window. . . I went downstairs
all by myself and LOOKED OUTSIDE THROUGH THE WINDOWS in the
kitchen aced the private office... Alas, it has had to be that I
am only able except on a few rare occasions to LOOK at nature
THROUGH dirty net curtains hanging before very dusty windows."

After reading all this, we must like Anne ask ourselves the
question: Are these people really supposed to be hiding?

She writes on July 8-44:227: "People can't see in from
outside because of the net curtains, [hence not because the
windows were covered with paper] but, even so, the LOUD VOICES
AND BANGING DOORS positively gave me the jitters. ARE WE REALLY
SUPPOSED TO BE IN HIDING?"

Anne asks herself this question in her fourth. last entry. We ask
ourself the same question.

WHAT ABOUT THE BLACKOUTS?

We shall here briefly consider the "blackouts" at the premises. We
have already observed that not only could one look OUT through the
windows but people from the outside could also look IN. Blackouts
were usually set up to conceal lights that might be visible to enemy
air raiders at night. Warehouses of the sort that the Franks lived at
were not in need of blackouts as people left the premises before the
night came. Blackouts would have indicated to others there were
people living at the premises. Anne writes that "Daddy
improved

31

the poor blackout" (10 July-42:18), thereby suggesting to us that
warehouses of this sort did not need blackouts and if they had they
were poorly made, perhaps only used for special emergencies.

On August 4-43:85 Anne writes that before the Van Daans went to
bed, Mrs. Van Daan's bed "is shifted to the window . . . in order
to give Her Majesty in the pink bed jacket fresh air to tickle her
dainty nostrils!" Apparently Van Daan's large window did not have
a blackout. It seems however that they were put up inside Mr. Frank
and Anne's room for Anne's room had also a window (Compare Schnabel
5:79). The blackouts were put up at ten o'clock p.m. (4 Aug.-43:85;
Compare 10 Aug.-43:91, 11 April -44: 181). We are now faced pondering
on two problems.

First, the lights at the Van Daan's would have been observed from
the outside. Opening and closing the windows at will would be further
indications that people were living there. Their kitchen stove,
throwing out light would be another clue to outsiders. Peter had a
flashlight If artificial light were not used, which by the way they
had used above their quota (28 Nov.-42:49); candles were used.

Second, the "Secret Annexe" had windows on all sides. If the
blackouts were put up at such a late time the neighbors must have
seen the lights previous to them setting up the blackouts. It is
impossible to believe that no people would observe the light coming
from their windows. We remember that Anne got hold of a pair of
binoculars and was able to see a "couple having a meal, one family
was in the act of showing a home movie; and the dentist opposite was
just attending to an old lady, who was awful scared" (28
Nov.-42:49). What tells us that these people could not have had
binoculars and look into their windows? The dwellers at the warehouse
may also have shown movies. We read for instance of that that their
"projector" had "disappeared from the cupboard" (1 March-44:143). We
have evidence, for whatever the "evidence" is worth in the "diary,"
that films were shown in Anne's home. On 25 June -42:1, Anne writes:
"We showed a film The Lighthouse Keeper with Rin Tin Tin, which my
school friends thoroughly enjoyed." This was prior to their
moving into the "Secret Annexe" but even after moving into the
warehouse, films may have been shown. The putting up and down of the
"blackouts" must sooner or later have been observed by the people.
They should have seen that lights were no longer visible from the
place or visible in a different way. How could their neighbors,
noticing all these activities, possibly miss observing there were
people living in the warehouse? It seems next to incredible. In view
of all these observations it is obvious that the "Secret Annexe"
story simply doesn't fit facts. Evidently the story has been highly
dramatized for what otherwise would have been a most dull and
ordinary diary. What the family underwent was no different; and in
several ways as the diary itself indicates they had it a lot better,
than any ordinary Dutch family in Holland who also may have written
diaries. Even if the story was not stripped of all its fertile
exaggerations one wonders how it could reach such fame and world wide
acclaim. Only through an unscrupulous, uncritical mass media in the
hands of certain clannish people using their willing henchmen as
tools could it have reached such fame.

CARPENTERS AT WORK

In view of the fact we are told even the

32

slightest noise could be heard (remember Margot was even forbidden
to cough at night although she had "a bad cold" 11 July -42:19) all
over the house, through the walls, into the next buildings on both
sides, one wonders how carpentry work and chopping wood could be
possible. The blackouts were made of wood: "In the evenings ALL THE
WINDOWS were blacked out; the visitor can still see the BOARDS which
were used for this purpose" (BG:3). "On Tuesday morning we went on
where we left off the day before" Anne reports, and adds:
"Daddy improved the poor blackout; we scrubbed the kitchen
floor." (10 July-42:17,18).

That would certainly have involved making a noise. We further
learn that Peter usually did carpentry work: "Peter. . . does a
bit of carpentry." (21 Aug.-42:22). About one and a half years
later it is still reported he does carpentry: "Peter didn't come
to me in the attic. He went up to the loft instead and did some
carpentry." (28 Feb.-44:142).

It even reported that Peter chops wood:

"NEARLYEVERYMORNING I go to the attic where Peter
WORKS. . . From my favorite spot on the floor I look up at the
blue sky and the bare chestnut tree, on whose branches little
raindrops shine, appearing like silver, and the seagulls arid the
other birds as they glide on the wind . . . We remained like this
for a long time, and when he had to go up to the loft to CHOP
WOOD... then he CHOPPED WOOD for about a quarter of an boon . . I
watched him from where I stood, he was obviously doing his best to
show off his strength. But I looked out of of the OPEN
WINDOW." (23 Feb.-44:140).

Now, if Peter perhaps daily chops wood, with the window open one
would expect the noise carried not only to their own buildings on the
sides but also onto the street outside. Likely the wood was used for
their stoves) and perhaps "wood shavings" were used for Mouschi - the
cat (10 May-44:205). Mr. Vossen had done the carpentry of the "secret
door" to their "Annexe" (21 Aug.-42:21). It should not be necessary
for us to point out that carpentry work, the chopping of wood etc.,
involves no mere whispering noises but a racket. If they truly were
in hiding and so concerned about noise, how is it they could have
allowed all this racket occurring nearly every day?

THERE IS NO FIRE WITHOUT SMOKE

Another perplexing question is how this group of eight people
managed keeping themselves so out of sight for over two years in
spite of the fact that we are told the Gestapo and their henchmen
were constantly looking for suspects while this group continued on
with daily routine chores in a most ordinary way. There were for
instance several stoves in the warehouse. One of the reasons for the
"five fire extinguishers in the house" (20 Oct.-42:37) was probably
for precautions against stove fires. Besides heating, the stoves
would be used for cooking, baking, frying and burning refuse. They
had to be lit for these purposes and kept burning which in turn would
throw off possible lights besides keeping a chimney smoking. Van
Daans' stove in particular was used for cooking, frying and baking.
Fried potatoes were apparently much enjoyed for Anne tells us that,
"we," thereby meaning her family and not the Van Daans, "fry our own
potatoes" (15 Jan.-44:123). Seemingly they had "fried potatoes" daily
(25 May-44:213). Besides causing smoke from the stoves, cooked and
fried foods cause noises, smoke and odors. Even when it was

33

warm outside they lit fires. Perhaps Anne speaks of their own
stove when she writes:

"Although it is FAIRLY WARM, WE HAVE TO LIGHT OUR
FIRES EVERY OTHER DAY, IN ORDER TO BURN VEGETABLE PEELINGS AND
REFUSE. We can't put anything in the garbage pails, because we
must always think of the warehouse boy. How easily one could be
betrayed by being a little careless." (18 May-43:72).

However "being a little careless" is indeed stating it lightly
when it comes to this group. Boys are usually by nature very
inquisitive and one would think the warehouse boy would have wondered
even more how it came that the "plain grey door" suddenly
disappeared. For instead of a door he would now see a bookcase! Fire
produces ashes. We presume the ashes were not stored inside the house
over two years. Fire causes smoke, which someone, if not the
warehouse boy, sooner or later would have noticed. The above
quotation seems also strange when we remember fires were lit not
"every other day" but every day for making food and in the winter
time we assume also for keeping their rooms warm. The group was often
sick - keeping the rooms cold would only worsen the situation. The
above quotation, or part of it, may not be the original text.
"Porridge" (25 May-44:213) we suppose necessitates cooking and
a fire. "Corn" must be cooked (3 Feb.-44:131). "In the
evening we always have potatoes with gravy substitute." Anne
writes, and they even made "dumplings" (3 April-44: 173-4). They
baked. (Ibid. 174) How could they make all this without fire?
Anne says they "have sufficient coal and firewood in the house,
also candles." (3 Feb.-44:132). We do not of course mean by this
that the gas stove was not also used in making food (Compare 20
Aug.-43:95). Eight people is quite a number however to be fed by just
a "gas ring."

Now there is no fire without smoke. Not only would the smoke have
been noticed but also the keeping of plenty of firewood and coal.
Possibly in order to avert some of the above objections an answer is
given which to us seems rather invented. This is how they explain
it:

"This room served a threefold purpose: it was Mr. and
Mrs. Van Daan's bedroom... and. kitchen. The STOVE which we can
still see here was used for COOKING and for BURNING REFUSE. The
STOVE COULD BE SAFELY used by the inmates of the annex BECAUSE THE
NEIGHBORS KNEW THAT THERE WAS A SMALL LABORATORY SOMEWHERE IN THE
BUILDING." (BG:3)

In examining their answer we notice it does not fit known facts.
Anne reports herself it was the "gas stove" which was used in the
laboratory. No mention is made here of another stove using coal or
fire even existed (9 July-42:16-7). A gas stove in a small laboratory
would hardly cause all that smoke. In any case it seems fairly
certain the small laboratory was seldom used. A well used laboratory
would certainly have been reported to the authorities who were afraid
of partisans making ammunition and fire bombs. We also wonder what
neighbors thought when seeing a chimney smoking at the most odd hours
and at times when people were not supposed to be even present in the
laboratory. The answer they give above does not convince us. It seems
like pure fabrication. This matter about the laboratory, supposedly
well known with the neighbors, makes one also wonder why the group
chose this place for their "hiding." A place where a laboratory is
located seems to us to be a very stupid

34

place to choose for a hiding place in war times if "hiding" really
was the matter that troubled them. Likely this was not their prime
motive; hence they felt they could choose staying at a laboratory
even though they knew it may be raided and searched at any given
moment. Another stove may have existed inside the "Secret Annexe"
besides the one that the Van Daans had. It may have been this one
Anne wrote about when she says:

"Tomorrow we are going to light the fire for the first
time. I expect we shall be suffocated with SMOKE. The chimney
hasn't been swept for ages, let's hope the thing draws." (29
Oct.-42:39).

If she meant Van Daan's stove then the above quotation does not
make sense for then the refuse would not have been burned and the
warehouse boy would have noticed it seeing it was reported as late as
Oct. 29 and by this time they had lived there for over three months.
Likely it was their own stove which she tells about when she wrote of
"Daddy's bedroom slippers warming in front of the fire" as "in
bygone days" (28 Jan.-44:129). At that time the winter was on.
The stove where her father was to throw her discourteous letter may
have been their own stove (7 May-44:201). The same may be for the
case when the wood shavings were burned which Mouschi had urinated on
(10 May-44:205). The contents of her entry of Nov. 11, 1943:104 when
she reports of her fountain pen being thrown into the fire along with
other refuse definitely makes it appear they had a stove in the
father's room. From all this contradictory writing it is not easy to
make out how things really were at the time. The fire and smoke
issues do give us additional evidence that the story is greatly
exaggerated with many portions being outright fakes.

SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST GETTING MAIL

We suppose, after having read all this from the diary and related
sources, that, the readers wonder, in view of the Dutch police and
the German Gestapo's total inability to notice the group of eight
people, how they could catch anyone at all. It would seem that they
would not even be capable of catching a fly if the story is true. We
will now further enlarge on our reasons for believing it to be a
hoax.

If we are to believe the diary we are supposed to accept the fact
that the group of eight people received and expected mail during the
week. It is reported that Mr. Van Daan at "Quarter to six" is
downstairs in "Kraler's room" where "Van Daan is looking in all the
drawers and portfolios to find the DAY'S POST." (20 Aug.-43:94).
Strangely enough under the same date, although mentioning Elli going
upstairs with Anne to do the shorthand course, no mention is made of
Eli bringing up the mail to them. Instead we find Van Daan downstairs
looking for the day's post. Elli had previously "written to some
secretarial school or other and ordered a correspondence course in
shorthand forMargot, Peter and me." Anne reports (1 Oct.-42:33 4;
about shorthand compare 17 Nov.-42:46, 27 March-43:66, 11 July-43:75,
13 July-43:78,19 March-44:159).

Here is how they allege that Margot's Latin lessons were handled:
"The Latin lessons MARGOT SENDSIN are corrected by a teacher and
returned, Margot writing in Elli's name." (17 Nov.-43:105). How
the shorthand lessons were handled we are not told. Perhaps Elli
Vossen, "a twenty-three years old typist." (9 July-42:15) who
later "worried . . over her engagement, which" was "not
al-

together rosy" (26 May-44:213 14) may have been the
receiver of the shorthand courses which were sent to Prinsengracht.
The reason why this seems to have been the case only for Margot may
have been because it was Margot they were worried about:

"On Sunday, July 5, 1942, the S.S. sent a notice that
Margot Frank must report for forced labor. Early the next day, the
entire family went into hiding" (AFFA:7).

Seeing that many of the members took courses it would not seem
logical that Elli sent in all these IN HER OWN NAME. That she could
have sent in Margot's lessons, IN HER OWN NAME is probable but she
hardly would have sent, IN HER OWN NAME, all the other courses.
First, the teachers at the school would wonder how it was that the
same person sends in the same lessons, perhaps one being more
advanced than the other. Second, they would have noticed the
different handwriting.

Additional confirmation that mail was sent to the members can be
gathered from the 3 Nov.-43:101 entry. It says:

"In order to give us something to do, which is also
educational, DADDY APPLIED FOR A prospectus from the Teachers'
Institute in Leiden. Margot nosed through the thick book at least
three times without finding anything to her liking or to suit her
purse. Daddy was quicker, arid wants a letter written to the
Institute asking for a trial lesson in `Elementary Latin.' "Later
"Margot and Daddy" went to `practice their Latin" (11
Nov.-43:104).

Now, don't start asking us how anyone that is supposed to be in
hiding and out of the country can start asking for courses by mail
and even receive mail, addressed to their alleged "hiding place" at
Prinsengracht, but with the Franks, the Van Daans and Dussel',
apparently everything IS possible. "Truth" is indeed stranger than
"fiction."

DRUG ADDICT AT A TENDER AGE

Anne appears to have been a habitual drug addict while hiding. She
informs us: "I swallow Valerian pills EVERY DAY against worry arid
depression, but it doesn't prevent me from being even more miserable
the next day" (16 Sept.-43:97). The drug from the Valerian was
made from the roots of plants and used as a sedative and
antispasmodic. Anne's worry wasn't about their "hiding place" being
exposed but due to the fact that the "Relations between us here
are getting worse all the time" (Ibid.). Later on however she
does admit that to look up at the sky is "a better medicine than
either Valerian or bromine" (15 June-44:222). How she was able to
look up at the sky to cure her problem we cannot tell. The Jewish
writer, Margit Vinberg, informs us, after her personal interview with
the Franks at Basel in August, *1956, that the roller blinds upstairs
were AL, WAYS KEPT DOWN and windows were NEVER OPENED (Vecko
Journalen, Nr. 35, 1956*). How the Valerian pills were obtained
we are not told.

WHY NOT RADIOS?

By this time we should not feel stupefied to learn that the group
were loyal radio listeners, even, though Margot was not allowed to
cough at night. Music kept the family in tune while heated arguments
raged over certain programs. Under the same

52

entry where we are told "sounds could travel through the
walls" and that Margot was not allowed "to cough at night"
we are at the same time told that: "The four of us went to the
private office yesterday evening and turned on the radio."
Besides this, Anne was very happy over the fact that once the Van
Daans would arrive "it will be much more fun AND NOT SO QUIET"
(11 July-42:19; compare 11 April-44:180). Very strange indeed, we
must say.

The "wireless," a big Phillips (15 June-43:74) was located
downstairs at the "private office." It was a "first-class"
radio (9 July-42:15). At "seven-thirty in the evening then
everyone was in the private office listening to the radio" (2
Sept.-42:24). Often it was tuned on England, in fact German stations
were "only listened to in special cases such as classical music
and the like" (17 Nov.-42:46). Listening to England was worth the
risk of the whole group being caught:

"Mrs. Van Daan came upstairs, she'd been listening to
the wireless in the private office. She told us that Pun had asked
her to turn off the wireless... Now it was UNFOR TUNATE that the
wireless down stairs was still tuned to England, and that the
chairs were neatly arranged round it. If the door had been forced,
and the AIR RAID WARDENS had noticed and warned the police, then
the results might have been very unpleasant" (25 March-43:65).

The interesting point is made here that AIR RAID WARDENS search
the homes making this story all the more impossible. About a year
after first reporting about the radio, Anne lets us know "our big
Phillips" will be handed in "next month." Instead they
"shall have a little radioupstairs" (15 June-43:74).
Their own regulations about the radio were apparently rarely
followed:

"Own radio center, direct communication with London,
New York, Tel Aviv, curd numerous other stations. This appliance
is only for residents' USE AFTER SIX O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING. No
stations are forbidden, on the understanding that German stations
are only listened to in special cases, such as CLASSICAL MUSIC AND
THELIKE" (17 Nov.-42:46). It is not known whether or not the
references to inter continental radio communication are meant to
be a joke. Alongside some of the other ludicrous claims in the
book, differentiation does become somewhat difficult.

The fear seems to have lingered not over being caught, but
listening to the German LANGUAGE, the country where the Franks had
become wealthy in the first place. Instead of fighting over the
listening restrictions which we expect would be a logical step for
them to; as the dangers of being caught increased they became EVEN
LESS restrictive: "ONE O'CLOCK. We're all sitting listening to the
B.B.C., seated around the baby wireless." This was in the
daytime. Under the same entry, at HALF PAST TWELVE; half an hour
earlier, Mrs. Van Daan decides to vacuum and Anne reports that
"one CAN THE NOISE of Mrs. Van Daan's VACUUM CLEANER" (5
Aug.-43:88).

Anne further reports that she could follow "the English Home
Service quite well on the wireless" (27 Jan.-44:127).

The Germans get little consolation from the group but their music
was much loved: "On Sunday evening EVERYONE, except Pim and me,
was sitting beside the wireless in order to listen to the
`Immortal

53

Music of the German Masters" (14 Feb.-44:135).

Instead of the radio noise decreasing it steadily worsens. On
March 27-44 Anne reports: "THE RADIO therefore GOES ON EARLY IN
THE MORNING AND IS LISTENED TOATALL HOURS OFTHEDAY, UNTIL NINE, TEN,
AND OFTEN ELEVEN O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING" (27 March-44:167). Why
then all this fuss about the "Secret Annexe" we may ask? And "if
they are not eating or sleeping, then they are sitting around the
radio and discussing food, sleep and politics. "They can "hardly wait
till the end of the speech, STAMPING THEIR FEET. . . they EGG EACH
OTHER ON until the arguments lead to discord and quarrels"
(168).

At this stage we wonder whether the group would not have been
safer making their hiding place at Amsterdam's Gestapo HQ!

Under Anne's entry of April 11-44:176 7 she reports: "There was
a beautiful Mozart concert on the radio from six o'clock until a
quarter past seven. I enjoyed it all very much, but especially the
'Kleine Nachtmusik."'

In her entry of May 26-44 we hear still: '"everyone...
listening to the radio" (26 May-44:214). Her entries about
hearing Bolkestein and Gerbrandy over the radio, telling the Dutch
people to make a collection of diaries and letters after the war is
most interesting and may give us a clue why, when and how, the Anne
Frank Diary matter started, even though we wonder how it came that a
boring story like that became the only real, international
remembrance of that suggestion (29 March-44:170; 14 April-44:186)? In
any case, the biggest trouble the group had was to keep their mouths
shut. As we have already noticed, making a racket was the order of
the day. How they were able to keep themselves in hiding for over two
years under these circumstances seems to be more than a miracle.
Needless to say, no reviewer of the Anne Frank Diary has in any of
our major papers gone into these glaring discrepancies but have taken
the story at face value lauding it as one of the greatest documents
ever written.

AT THE DENTIST

It appears that Albert Dussel kept a dental service at the
premises. Once he treated Mrs. Van Daan. Unfortunately the operation
was less successful. She uttered "INCOHERENT CRIES OF PAIN"
while the group looked on ROARING "WITH LAUGHTER" resulting in
that she "SCREAMED EVEN LOUDER . . .AFTER MUCH TURNING, KICKING,
SCREAMING, AND CALLING OUT" she got the instrument free, at last
(10 Dec.-42:53).

This noisy and unfortunate experience did not result in that
Dussel gave up further dental treatment but must have inspired him to
renewed efforts. He now "received an old-fashioned foot operated
dentist's drill." Anne expected "he'll soon give me a thorough
check over" (19 March-43:64). Where and how this contraption
later was used and kept we are not told but dental services do seem a
bit odd for anyone to be engaged in that is supposed to be in hiding.
A warehouse for spices seems hardly to be a good place to keep a
dental drill which, by the way, must have been a tool in high demand.
If "a lot of houses are being searched for hidden bicycles"
(21 Aug.-42:21) one wonders what the searchers would have felt had
they found a dentist drill at a spice ware-

54

house. Dussel must have been in contact with other persons in one
way or another to buy the drill and it must have been brought there
somehow. What Dussel did in the office downstairs we are not told (25
April 14:190-1). Perhaps he was keeping a dental service, fixing
teeth!

LIVING A HOG'S LIFE

The group seems to have weltered in wealth and in spite of the
fact that:

"Against the background of the mass murder of European
Jewry, the book presents a vivid picture of a group of HUNTED
PEOPLE FORCED TO LIVE AND SURVIVE TOGETHER IN ALMOST INTOLERABLE
PROX IMITI"(RE, Vol. 1:365); they decided to make the quarters
even more intolerable by moving their belongings with them which
"belongings" they did not want to be "seized by the Germans" (5
July-42:11).

In moving in, Anne writes that: "Our living room and all other
rooms were CHOCK FULL of rubbish, INDESCRIBABLY SO. . . The LITTLE
ROOM WAS FILLED TO THE CEILING WITH BED CLOTHES" (10 July-42:17).
How they, under these INTOLERABLE cramped circumstances could breathe
at all, and if they, besides their dental drill, had respirators to
help them along we do not know even less how they could vacuum clean,
dance and perform acrobatics. Evidently their bodies were highly
gymnastically tuned. Anne frankly admits: "And as FOR US, we are
FORTUNATE. Yes, WE ARE LUCKIER THAN MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. It is QUIET
and SAFE HERE, and we are, so to speak, LIVING ON CAPITAL. We are
even so selfish as to talk aboutafter the war"' (13
Jan.-43:56).

That was, before the group moved in. After that it was QUIET no
longer. Comparatively speaking they lived in a paradise:

"If I just think of how we live here, I usually come to the
conclusion that it is a paradise with how other Jews who are not in
hiding must be living" (1 May-43:70). It is a pity then that not
more Jews decided to HIDE and live under such "intolerable"
conditions. Fruit cost "next to nothing" and at a time when millions
were starving in Germany and other places they had plenty of it (23
July-43:80). No wonder Anne felt: "how lucky we are here compared
with other Jewish children" (24 Dec.-43:109). It was while she
was in "hiding" that Anne for the first time received something on
Christmas, "Friday evening." Indeed something for us to think about
who were living on egg shells at the time, if at all available. There
was plenty of money and she could "HEAR NO THING BUT THIS SORT OF
TALK THE WHOLE DAY LONG." They talked about making "little
moneybags, which could easily be hidden in our clothing, IN CASE WE
WANT TO TAKE MONEY WITH US" (3 Feb.-44:132). Seeing we are being
told it was the gas chambers they were waiting for in case they got
discovered one wonders what purpose they could have to make
moneybags. In spite of all these open admissions a whole world has
been led to believe few families, if any, suffered more than the
Franks and their company. In reality their big problem was, what to
do with all their plenty.

FOOD GALORE

Although the affluent little Jewish society at Prinsengracht may
not have

55

had the best French Cuisine, they certainly had little to complain
about as regards the necessities and EXTRAS of life which may explain
the group's constant bickerings and why Anne has so little to write
about, except her love affairs and the families' continuous
quarreling over trivialities. While Anne seems to have had some
compassion over dirty children with running noses she wouldn't
"want to touch them with a barge pole." Anne gives Margot the
suggestion that they should clean the children, to which Margot
interrupted: "By tomorrow they would look just as filthy and
ragged as before" (13 Dec.-43:54). A rather interesting moral
nicety coming from the "oppressed" whose rooms were filled to the
brim with goods.

Food and other things had been taken to other people "for more
than a year" (5 July-42:11). Evidently they had also been taken
to their "hiding place" for a lengthy time suggesting to us the whole
thing had been planned long before 6 July 1942.

The popular myth which has been spun around Anne Frank that the
group lived under starvation and utterly destitute circumstances
finds interestingly little support in the "diary" itself. It is quite
evident that at the time the group lived better than most people in
Germany and elsewhere and as we have seen this is also admitted by
Anne herself. For instance, they had, apart from other food, 150 cans
of vegetables and 270 pounds of dried peas and beans besides potatoes
(9 Nov.-42:42). After one furious quarrel Dussel left the room:
"his COAT STUFFED WITH FOOD" (13 July43:78). Exactly where he
was heading for we are not told. They ordered "some extra corn in
addition to" their "Sixty pounds." Anne writes in 3
Feb.-44:132): "Our stock's not toobad" (132).
Notwithstanding the fact that baking causes a racket, they baked
biscuits, cakes (22 Dec.-42:55), and dumplings (3 April-44:174).
"A LOT OF MEAT" was bought under the counter whereby sausages
were made (10 Dec.-42:52 2). Later Mrs. Van Daan worries that
burglars "have taken the sausages and all our peas and beans"
from the attic (10 March-43:61). How exactly they could have done so
without passing their "secret door" we are not told. Coffee was still
available, so was butter, eggs, tea and tobacco (6 May-44:200). Even
up to 8 July-44 strawberries were available to them which they ate
and made jam out of (227-8). Of course even our affluent group could
be troubled with rotten food (Compare 3 April-44:173, 3 May-44:197,
23 June-44:223). We notice however that even under these
circumstances the meals were certainly sufficient. The rationing of
potatoes (23 June-44:223) seems a good choice in view of that Mr. Van
Daan "takes a lot" (9 Aug.-43:89). The son, after having eaten
"the heartiest meal" declared calmly that "he could have
eaten double" (90). Peter we are told enjoyed talking "about
food" (14 June-44:221). As late as July 8-44:229 she talks about
an enamel pan "filled to the brim" with peas. Tobacco as we
have noticed was available. So was coffee and tea. Cognac was served
(17 Nov:42:45), also beer (13 May-44:207) and wine (2 May-44:196).
The main problem and trouble again, seems to have been themselves and
how to get enough room in their stomachs so they could stuff down all
their food.

ANNE'S CHARACTER NOT EVEN A NICE GIRL

From what we can gather from her own diary it is quite obvious the
parents seem to have neglected giving the child a proper parental
love and direction. In

56

spite of her young age, Anne's main ambition was to make money and
ALL her "hopes are pinned on after the war" (8 May-44:202) to
make lots of it. She was a spoiled child, a bore and a brat,
hotheaded, nervous, rude and filled with egomania (Compare Schnabel
1:15). She was rude and even at the coffee table she could tell a
visitor he had cat eyes (Ibid 17). Although Anne wants to
shift the blame onto her parents, she no doubt was herself
responsible in stirring up trouble over trivialities. She is an
incredibly spoiled child. Anne writes:

"Daddy wishes that I would sometimes volunteer to help
Mummy, when she doesn't feel well or has a headache; BUT I
SHAN'T" (3 Oct.-42:34).

She admits being "spoiled from top to toe by Mummy and
Daddy" and that she gets "lots of sweets, enough pocket
money." Anne asks: "what more could one want?" Only very
wealthy parents would in those days have given their children pocket
money not to speak about ENOUGH pocket money. That apparently was
Anne's problem she got all she wanted. Anne tells us further she was
"a terrible flirt" (7 March-44:149). She consumed Valerian
pills making one wonder if she suffered under periodic psychosis,
which may either have been a functional or organic type, or both (16
Sept.-43:97).

Anne's family and immediate surrounding may therefore have
contributed severely to her problems; at least, they hardly seem
fitting company for a healthy child let alone someone sick. Their
constant disputes would be destructive to any child. Perhaps the
father knew about his daughter's troubles which he had contributed to
and so he tried to paint up his own image by concocting a diary.
Anne's great hope to get wealthy was probably the hope her father
shared. Apparently the money he had was not enough. Mr. Frank does
not seem overly disturbed, that in spite of his wealth; the baker to
whom they owed money paid Mr. Frank's bills out of his own pocket
(Schnabel 6:85).

Anne also seems to suffer from lavatory, excremental and sex
neuroses. We will deal more with this further on. She feels pretty
high about herself:

"I'm not going to take all these insults lying down,
I'll show them that Anne Frank wasn't born yesterday. Then they'll
be surprised and perhaps they'll keep their MOUTHS SHUT when I let
them see that I am going to start EDUCATING THEM. Shall I take up
that attitude? Plain barbarism! I'm simply amazed again and again
over THEIR AWFUL MANNERS and especially. . . stupidity, (Mrs.
Van Daan's), but as soon as I get used to this and it won't be
long then I'll give them some of their own back, and no half
measures. Then they'll change their tune!" (28 Sept.-42:29).

On 7 May-4 she writes:

"It's right that for once I've been taken down from my
inaccessible pedestal, that my pride has been shaken a bit, for I
was becoming much too taken up with myself again" (201).

Anne's rudeness knows no bounds for she feels:

"Even if people are still very young, they shouldn't
be prevented from saying what they think" (2 March-44:144).

We notice here the lack of parental love and direction. Little
wonder she hurts her mother bitterly bringing "tears in her
eyes" (2 Apri143:69).

The mother had merely invited her

57

daughter to pray with her. Anne's rude Anne says: letter to her
father can be explained in the same spirit (5 May-44:199-200, 6 &
7 May-44:200-1). Even if we take into consideration the unhealthy and
destructive surroundings which Anne lived under we still have our
doubts if Anne ever uttered many of the things which allegedly are
placed in her mouth and pen. They may not have been in the original
and may be interpolations. They give the tinge of Jewish Americanism
as if some journalistic hands have given them a work over. It would
be interesting indeed to find out if they are in Anne's original
diary. Let us give here some examples. She writes she was furious
with "Master Dussel" and thought "In a minute I'LL GIVE HIM SUCH A
SMACK IN THE FACE THAT HE'LL FLY UP THE CEILING TOGETHER WITH HIS
LIES" (13 July-43:78). She is furious over the Van Daans (and
perhaps with good reasons) who had claimed on the matter of sex that
she was

"already proficient in the theory, IT'S ONLY THE
PRACTICE THAT YOU STILL LACK." Anne wished she "COULD HAVE SLAPPED
BOTH THEIR FACES AT THAT MOMENT as they stood there making a fool
of me. I was beside myself with rage and I'm just counting the
days until I'm rid of 'those' people" (29 July-43:83).

Further on she writes:

"I used to have a bad habit; I wish I still had it
now. If I was angry with anyone, rather than argue it out I WOULD
GO TO WORK ON HIM WITHMYFISTS" (14 Feb.-44:135).

Of her Algebra book she writes: "If I'm ever in a really
VERYWICKED MOOD, I'LL TEAR THEBLASTED THING TO PIECES!" (20
May44:210).

The unfortunate Mrs. Van Daan gets continuously blasted. In one
place Anne says:

"Everyone knows that Mrs. Van Daart, one of my chief
accusers, is unintelligent. I might as well put it plainly and say
`stupid' Stupid people usually can't take it if others do better
than they do" (14 June-44:220).

However, she reminds us she is not prejudiced (29 July-43:84, 17
March-44:159). When we are aware that the father claims "some
passages which he felt to be too intimate or which might hurt other
peoples feelings" (AFFA:6) were OMITTED, we wonder what other things
Anne could have written, seeing the above rude passages WERE
INCLUDED. We feel however that the above quotations raise strong
doubts as to their having ever existed in the original or they may
have been altered. They may be interpolations. They do not sound like
coming from a young girl. We are entirely sympathetic to those
Orthodox Jews who have raised their voices and said that the diary is
an obnoxious story. An examination of the original records would
indicate whether they are genuine utterings made by Anne herself. If
so, her parents must be blamed for neglecting to give the child
proper love and affection.

QUARRELS, QUARRELS, QUARRELS

What makes the Anne Frank Diary so boring to healthy minds is
without a doubt its repetitious grinding over trivialities - its
constant sordid telling of family quarrels. Indeed we wonder how Mr.
Frank could have picked such an unharmonious crowd to live with him
in hiding seeing his own family would have given him troubles enough.
The diary seems to have contained even more examples of quarrels for
Mr. Frank, as noted, has said parts were

58

omitted which "might hurt other peoples feelings." If we would
elide all the family rows and quarrels along with Anne's sex
adventures and dreams the diary would become a mere skeleton.

She feels downhearted over her monotonous clutterings "and
silently wishes that Anne would occasionally dig up something
new"(28 Jan.-44:128) which we on our part heartily agree with.
However, even though she tries hard she finds "it is impossible
for anything in the conversation here to be fresh and new" (129).
Being unable to do so we are forced to read about all their rows over
money, clothing, food, lavatory and excremental intricacies and her
own self importance. The biggest problem the group seems to have had
was their own existence. Their continuous quarrels put the German
problem completely on the sideline. After having moved to their new
home in 1942 she was unable to understand "the quarrels, the
bickerings." The way she "could keep up some bearing was by
being impertinent" (7 March-44:150). Already in her second entry
after the Van Daans had arrived she writes:

"It is not all honey between Mummy and Mrs. Van Daan;
there is plenty of cause for unpleasantness. To give a small
example, l will tell you that Mrs. Van Daan has taken all three of
her sheets out of the common linen cupboard. She takes it for
granted that mummy's sheets will do for all of us" (2
Sept.-42:22 3).

The Van Daans were gluttonous:

"In my opinion the Van Daans don't divide it at all
fairly. However, my parents are much too afraid of a row to say
anything about it" (27 Feb.-43:60). She calls the Van Daans: "some
real greedy PIGS on the top floor" (9 Nov.-42:42,compare 9
Aug.-43:89). Again: "Mrs. Van Daan had another tantrum. She is
terribly moody" (27 Sept.-42:27). Previous to that she writes:
"Mrs. Van Daan is unbearable. I get nothing but `blowups' from
her for my continuous chatter. She is always pestering us in some
way or other." About the leftovers she continues: "This is
the latest: she doesn't want to washup the pans if there is a
fragment left; instead of putting it into a glass dish, as we've
always done until now, she leaves it in the pan to go bad" (21
Sept.-42:25).

On 27 April, 1943, she writes:

"SUCH QUARRELS THAT THE WHOLE HOUSE THUNDERS! Mummy
and I, the Van Daans and Daddy, Mummy and Mrs. Van Daan, everyone
is angry with everyone else" (69). 26 July, 1943: "Nothing
but tumult and uproar yesterday, we are still very het up about it
all. You might really ask, does a day go by without some
excitment?" (81). On 3 August, 1943, Mr. Van Daan had "just
made it up after a week's squabbling" (84). Even in her dreams
she thinks about a "quarrel upstairs" (4 Aug.-43:87) and
says of `Madame' Van Daan: "one could perhaps call her the
`kindler.' Stirring up trouble, that's fun. Mrs. Frank against
Anne; Margot against Daddy doesn't go quite so easily" (9
Aug.-43:89).

Plenty of problems exist also between Anne and her mother.
"Just had a big bust up with Mummy for the umpteenth time" (27
Sept.-42:27, compare 3 Oct.-42:34). The reason why Anne makes so few
entries in her diary may perhaps also be explained by the following.
"Every time I write to you something special seems to have
happened, but they are more often unpleasant than pleasant
things" (10 Sept.-43:96-7) and the

59

only "wonderful thing going on" she can think of is the war
(97). But not for long. In her next entry, conditions are back to
NORMAL:

"Relations between us here ARE GETTING WORSE ALL THE
TIME. At mealtimes, NO ONE DARES TO OPEN THEIR MOUTHS (EXCEPT TO
ALLOW A MOUTHFUL OF FOOD TO SLIP IN) because whatever is said you
either annoy someone or it is misunderstood."

To help her in her cause she swallows Valerian pills "every
day" (16 Sept.-43:97). The entry after situation still the
same:

"If only I wasn't mixed up so much with all these
rows! If I could only get away! They'll drive us crazy before
long!" (29 Sept.-43:99). So is the next entry: "They've had A
TERRIFICROW UPSTAIRS... lam dazed by all the abusive exchanges
that have taken place in this virtuous house during the past
month" (17 Oct.-43:99).

Next entry no difference:

"There have been RESOUNDING ROWSAGAIN THE
YELLSAND SCREAMS, STAMPING AND ABUSE YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY IMAGINE
IT! It was frightening. My family stood at the bottom of the
stairs, holding their breath, ready if necessary to drag them
apart! All this shouting and weeping and nervous tension are so
unsettling and such a strain, that in the evening I drop into my
bed crying, thanking heaven that I sometimes have half an hour to
myself" (29 Oct.-43:100).

This may explain Anne's few entries. It was upsetting to
experience it, let alone, write about it. If Albert Dussel is not in
trouble he is causing trouble (17 Nov.-43:105). Finally on 22 Dec.,
1943, just before Christmas she can report:

"There is not much news to tell you. We are all getting on well
together FOR A CHANGE! There's no quarreling we haven't had such
peace in the home FOR AT LEAST HALF A YEAR" (109). However,
gathering from her entry, the peace seems to have been the result of
her having a "bad attack of flu" (108). Then follows her
entries about sex and family troubles until 15 Jan., 1944, when we
again hear her telling: "There is no point in telling you every
time the exact details of our rows and arguments.... unkind words,
and angry out-bursts. . . whether or not we choose to quarrel"
(122-3). She feels it is hard for her and she writes: "you can never
really confide in people even in those who are nearest you" (22
Jan.-44:123). She admits Mrs. Van Daan isn't to blame for all the
quarrels her mother and family is also (124-5). Mr. Dussel enjoys
talking about "his wife's extensive wardrobe" and "beautiful
race horses" (28 Jan.-44:128). On 2 March-4, a new crisis point is
reached:

"Only great love and devotion can help Elli, Margot,
Peter and me, AND NONE OF US GETS IT. And no one, especially the
stupid 'know-alls' here, can understand us, because we are much
more sensitive and much more advanced in our thoughts than anyone
here would ever imagine in their wildest dreams."

She says Peter often tells her "his parents quarrel over
politics" (145). She confides in Peter about "the
quarrels" (19 March-44:160) and tries to help "him over his
parent's quarrels" (22 March-44:163). However the group continues
to "egg each other on until the arguments lead to discord and
quarrels." They get

60

so impatient they are "stamping their feet" (27
March-44:168) and there is "no one here that sets a good
example" (14 April-44:185). Little wonder she feels "so
miserable" (26 May-44:213).

"Dr." Dussel enters again into the picture; "Fresh
`Secret Annexe' troubles, a quarrel between Dussel and the Franks
over something very trivial: the sharing of the butter" (5
June-44:216). Mrs. Van Daan is "offended that Dussel doesn't enter
INTO HER FLIRTATIONS. . . she quarrels, uses ABUSIVE LANGUAGE, cries,
pities herself, laughs, and then starts a fresh quarrel again"
(16 June-44:223).

In one of her last entries she says something we must surely agree
with after having gone through the group's dramatic and chaotic
quarrelings:

"People can't see in from outside because of the net
curtains, (about the net curtains, compare 11 July-42:19, 15
June-44:222) but, even so, the LOUD VOICES and BANGING DOORS
positively gave me the jitters. ARE WE REALLY SUPPOSED TO BE
INHIDING?" (8 July-44:227).

We have wondered about the same thing for the whole time. Anne's
reports about all the rows, fights, quarrels, arguments and chaotic
conditions is precisely the atmosphere we should expect exist amongst
such a lot. One is surely astounded that such a sordid story could be
pandered to world wide, making out of it not only a diary, a movie, a
play but also a Foundation. To us the whole business, for business it
indeed is, appears sickening the product of warped minds who can
stoop so low to use a daughter and a young gir1's personal problems
for commercial gains and propagandistic purposes.

Only "wonderful going on" she can think of is the war (97).
But not for long. In her next entry, conditions are back to
NORMAL:

"Relations between us here ARE GETTING WORSE ALL THE
TIME. At mealtimes, NO ONE DARES TO OPEN THEIR MOUTHS (EXCEPT TO
ALLOW A MOUTHFUL OF FOOD TO SLIP IN) because whatever is said you
either annoy someone or it is misunderstood."

To help her in her cause she swallows Valerian pills "every day"
(16 Sept.-43:97). The entry after - situation still the same:

"If only I wasn't mixed up so much with all these
rows! If I could only get away! They'll drive us crazy before
long." (27 Sept.-43:99). So is the next entry: "They've had A
TERIFIC ROW UPSTAIRS. . . I am dazed by all the abusive exchanges
that have taken place in this virtuous house during the past
month" (17 Oct.-43:99).

THE ANAL COMPLE X

We feel that another forceful reason why the Anne Frank Diary
cannot be entirely dismissed as a fictitious story is its
preoccupation with the anus and excrements, a trait typical of many
Jews. Pornography and excretal fantasies have always fascinated many
of them and they have therefore also been the greatest exploiters of
these things. There is something real about it when Anne tells of her
dear pottie, their lavatory and excremental problems, the passing of
intestinal gases and her love affairs with Peter. Of course, it may
be argued that Jews write about it even in fiction; so the diary
could still be fictitious and therefore this point proves nothing. He
is simply jotting down what he fancies. However, we feel, that in
part, the story is telling us about things which ACTUALLY TRANSPIRED.
There appears something

61

genuine behind all the excremental chitter chatters. Jewish
writings have been infused with stories about the reproductive and
excremental functions.

Two persons in sharp contrast, yet strikingly identical, have made
eminent contributions to the world in this field. The comedian
Charlie Chaplin became famous by wagging his rear end at the
audience, scratching frantically at his buttocks, and exhibiting the
usual run of the mill, age old preoccupations with the reproductive
and excretory organs. For this, and other things, he has been hailed
in the mass media as one of our greatest comedians ever to appear. So
much respect was lavished upon him, that one saw fit he should play
the part of Hitler in one film. He has been warmly loved ever
since.

In his own right, Sigmund Feud is an even greater comedian than
Charlie Chaplin. His outstanding contribution to the world is the
"anal complex," the theory that an obsession with the anus is the
principal influence in our emotional development. Feud is today the
patron saint of the "science" of psychiatry. Many millions of words
have been written on the subject of the reproductive and excretory
habits and learned speeches about the anal compulsion are delivered
by scholars before the world's learned bodies of distinguished men.
"Anal eroticism," the stage in pregenital libido in which pleasurable
sensations are supposed to be experienced in the anal regions
continue to intrigue our most learned professors. It is indeed odd
that no Nobel Prize has until now been instituted in this field.

The above information will explain a lot of things in Anne's diary
which to the uninitiated otherwise may be hard to understand. Anne
and her family were greatly amused over that Mrs. Van Daan brought a
large pottie in her hat box (14 Aug.-42:20).

"During the plumber's visit, nature's offerings were
deposited in these jars in the sitting room during the day." Anne
feels: "1'm not such a prude that I can't talk about these
things" (29 Sept.-42:32).

There was much discussion over, when one was "allowed to use
the lavatory?" (19 Nov.-42:47). For doctor Dussel in particular
this must have been quite a problem or he caused plenty of problems
for others as "his favorite spot" was the lavatory:

"Three, four, five times a day someone stands
impatiently in front of the door and wriggles, hopping from one
foot to the other, hardly able to contain himself: Does it disturb
him? Not a bit! From quarter past seven till half past, from half
past twelve till one o'clock, from two till quarter past, from
four till quarter past, from six till quarter past, and from half
past eleven until twelve. One can make a note of it these are the
regular `sitting times.' He won't come off or pay any heed to an
imploring voice at the door, giving warning of approaching
disaster!" (9 Aug.-43:90-1).

Whether the distinguished "doctor" was learning Feud in the
lavatory we do not know nor do we know how the lavatory could be used
so frequently without making noises and in view of the fact that Anne
reports the lavatory was not used after "half past eight." Perhaps
"nature's offerings" were deposited in these "glass jars" after this
time limit.

Anne was much thrilled when she could report:

"One afternoon we couldn't go to the lavatory because
there were visitors in the office; however, Peter had to pay an
urgent call. So

62

he didn't pull the plug. He put a notice up on the
lavatory door to warn us, with 'S.V.P. gas' on it. Of course he
meant to put `Beware of gas'; but he thought the other looked more
genteel" (5 Feb.-43:59). At another instance she reports
that: "We aranged that we would not draw any water or pull the
plug in the lavatory. But as the excitement had affected most of
our tummies, you can imagine what the atmosphere was like when we
had each paid a visit in succession" (25 March43:65).

Now and then the lavatory could give out "suspicious noises" (4
Aug.-43:86) and when the lavatory could not be used there was of
course great excitment. She claims that after "half past eight" there
was "no lavatory" but this seems odd in view of "Dr." Dussel's
constant visits as we already have noted (23 Aug.-43:95; compare 14
April-44:185, 26 May44:214). At times the odors must have been
repulsive even for this brave lot of people. How the excremental
odors can square with the spices is another question which captivates
us. Indeed, on 11 April-4, Anne tells us how five of them took turns
excreting into a waste paper can, and that "the tin smelled
ghastly. . . the smell wasn't so bad when one was on the floor. . .
stink, flatulation, and always someone on the pot." Along with
the odors of expelled gases was the noise factor: the flatus being
expelled, for Anne writes: "the food lies heavily on everybody's
tummy, CAUSING THUNDEROUS NOISES ON ALL SIDES." Apparently little
was done to prevent the noises. It wasn't Anne's job to clean the
potties. Her dad and Peter did it (11 April-44:182). To cure a
troublesome "Mrs. B." it was suggested that they put "a good
laxative in her coffee" (9 May-44:204). Although we cannot
dismiss the argument that these excremental preoccupations are mere
fancies on the part of the author or authors there are good reasons
to believe the stories are genuine and are in part reflecting some of
the foremost intellectual thoughts of the occupants. Even if they
were invented they nevertheless splendidly depict the anal complex,
of an ancient, cultural people.

FLIRTATIONS AND JEALOUSY

As can be expected with any miserable, unhappy crowd, especially
one that is grounded on such shaky morals as our group was, there
erupted plenty of ill feelings and jealousy. Although Anne seems a
little disturbed over flirtations falling in the wrong direction they
can likely be viewed as survival hatches for an otherwise boring
life. Anne was particularly annoyed over Mrs. Van Daan's flirtations
with her father:

"I must tell you that her attempts to flirt with Daddy
are a source of continual irritation for me. SHE STROKES HIS FACE
AND HAIR, PULLS HER SKIRT RIGHT UP, and makes so called witty
remarks, trying in this way to attract Pim's attention."

Anne told Mrs. Van Daan off, right in her "face" (1 Oct.-42:33).
However as we have seen, Anne was quite a flirt herself. It seems
Mrs. Van Daan WAS quite a flirt for she boasts about being one (5
Feb.-43:59). As time went on, her son Peter also learned the art (19
March44:160). Dussel who was so thrilled over fur coats and race
horses soon got the tune and fell in line. He was beginning to get
longings for women." Flirtations started between him and Mrs. Van
Daan (5 June-44:216). Mrs. Van Daan is later offended "that Dussel
doesn't

63

enter into her flirtations" (16 June-44:223). Perhaps at
this time he was thinking again about his fur coats and race horses.
Also we wonder how he could, seeing he spent most of his time in the
lavatory or on the "glass jar." Jealousy enters also into the
picture. Anne's mother is jealous over her taking too much to Mrs.
Van Daan (2 March-44:145) while Mrs. Van Daan in turn is jealous at
Anne for liking her son (28 March-44:169).

SEXUAL ENTRAVAGANZA

Anne's "love affair" (so indeed does Henri F. Pommer call it in
the AFFA brochure, pp.9, 12, 14) with Peter Van Daan occupies lengthy
portions in the diary, giving the impression someone is trying to
fill in on the story which otherwise would bore people to death. In
some respects the diary can be claimed to be the first paedophile
pornographic work to come out after World War II and sold on the open
market In fact, the descriptions by a teenage girl over her sex
affairs may likely be the first child porno ever to come out. At
least we do not know of any other work which can claim this
"distinguished" honor. It no doubt paved the way for future works of
this kind and played a powerful role in our present moral decadence.
A few Orthodox Jews were amongst the first to voice their opinions
against the diary claiming it to be immoral and presenting Jews in a
bad light. The sex portions may of course be fictitious, included
merely to "sell" the book but without them the diary would likely
have remained amongst Otto Frank's private memorabilia. It is a
frightening thought however to think that a father would use his
daughter in such a filthy manner but we are reminded of parents
prostituting their children, so why could literary prostitution not
be possible? If numerous interpolations were made, which we believe
is the case, how and where were these adulterations made? We are
certain that were we allowed to examine the original diary or diaries
we would find numerous portions that have both been inserted and
elided. This brings up the question: Who was the guilty person or
persons doing the falsifications? Who really are behind this obvious
swindle? Obviously the father would be the MAIN culprit but it is
only reasonable to expect he had the assistance of others. Likely it
was not a one man's job. It may have been a job of two, three or even
a team work. If we are to believe the story, little Anne became
infatuated early with boys. She brags about her amorous cortege and
being the center of attraction. She writes:

"WHAT A SILL Y ASS I AM! l am quite forgetting that I
have never told you the history of myself and ALL MY BOYFRIENDS.
When I WAS QUITE SMALL - I WAS STILL AT A KINDERGARTEN - I became
attached to Karel Samson. . .One of Karel's cousins, Robby, was a
slender, good looking dark boy, who aroused more admiration than
the little, humorous fellow, Karel. But looks did not count with
me. . . Then Peter crossed my path, and in my CHILDISH WA Y I
REALL Y FELL IN LOVE we were inseparable for one whole
summer. I can still remember us walking hand in hand through the
streets together I was mad about his laugh. . . he looked so
mischievous and naughty... if I kept on running after him I should
soon get the name of being boy mad.. . I went to the Jewish
Secondary School. Lots of boys in our class were keen on

64

me I thought it was fun, felt honored . . Harry was
mad about me. . .I am completely upset by the dream. When Daddy
kissed me this morning, I could have cried out: `Oh Petel, darling
Petel . . ..!' Who can help me now. . . Old Petel, Petel, how will
I ever free myself of your image?... I lone you, and with such a
great love that it can't grow in my heart any more but has to leap
out into the open and suddenly manifest itself in such a
devastating way!" (7 Jan.-44:118 20).

Already in her second entry she tells about Peter Wessel whom she
wants to marry (15 June-42:2). Again in her third entry she
writes: "I have strings of boy friends anxious to catch a glimpse
of me and who, failing that, peep at me through mirrors in class"
(20 June-42:2). In her fourth entry she herself asks the question to
which we ourselves would like an answer when she says: "I expect
you will be rather surprised at the fact that I should talk of boy
friends at my age. Alas, one simply can't seem to avoid it at our
school." A boy, you can be sure, Anne writes "fall head over
heels in love immediately and simply won't allow me out of sight"
(20 June42:5). These entries sound queer indeed to us, to say the
least. In her very last entry she exclaims: "As I've already said.
. . I've acquired the name of chaser of boys, flirt, know all, reader
of love stories" (1 Aug.-44:236). Having read Nico van
Suchtelen's book Eva's Youth, Anne hopes that she will never sell
herself "to unknown men in back streets" and wishes: "Also
it says Eva has a monthly period Oh, I'm so longing to have it too;
it seems so important" (29 Oct.-42:38).

As Henri F. Pommer stated before making the previous quotation:
"Anne was thirteen when she started her diary. Six months later
she regretted not having had her first menstruation" (AFFA:9).
About twelve months after, her wish was fulfilled:

"I think what is happening to me is so wonderful, and
not only what can be soon on my body, but all that is taking place
inside. I never discuss myself or any of these things with
anybody; that is why I have to talk to myself about them.. Each
time I have a period - and that has only been three times I have
the feeling that in spite of all the pain, unpleasantness, and
nastiness, I have a sweet secret, and that is why, although it is
nothing but a nuisance to me in a way, I always long for the time
that I shall feel that secret within me again." We are also
told that "Margot who is much more shy than I am, isn't at all
embarrassed" (5 Jan.-44:115 16).

Later, in spite of wanting to keep the secret for herself, she
discussed it with Peter only: "We were talking, for instance,
about blood via the subject we began talking about menstruation. He
thinks women are pretty tough" (31 March-44:172). On 13 June-4
she writes: "I hadn't had a period for over two months, but it
finally started again on Saturday. Still, in spite of all
unpleasantness and bother, I'm glad it hasn't failed me any
longer" (220). As the portions about Anne's love affairs with
Peter are quite lengthy we shall only cull some excerpts which have a
bearing on our doubts that these portions are genuine and may in fact
have been altered, or even worse, be completely fictitious. How
anyone can carry on in this manner with noise, quarrels, light, food
troubles, toilet problems and sex seems indeed strange,
especially

65

when we remember what The Reader's Encyclopedia so pointedly
observed about the group: "Against the background of the mass murder
of European Jewry, the book presents a VIVID PICTURE OF A GROUP OF
HUNTED PEOPLE FORCED TO LIVE AND SURVIVE TOGETHER IN ALMOST
INTOLERABLE PROXIMITY" (Thomas Y. Crowell Company, USA, 1965, Vol.
1:365). There are, and have been hundreds of thousands of families
living under REAL "intolerable proximity" but they certainly didn't
carry on in the manner that this lot did. This may further indicate
to us that the diary is not a true diary, much less a "document," but
a hodgepodge of a variety of sources. It seems indeed difficult to
accept that a teenage girl in those days would write such things, let
alone a girl that is supposed to be in hiding, knowing that at any
given moment their secret may be discovered and the whole group
carried away to certain death.

Likely no girl in the whole of Amsterdam carried on in the way
Anne did. We wonder how anyone under the threat of death could think
of writing her first love story! If so, this may be the first attempt
ever. Anne gets confronted reading about prostitution (29
Oct.-42:38). Mr. Dussel "thought he'd play doctor, and came and
lay on my NAKED CHEST with his greasy head" (22 Dec.-43:108). A
rather peculiar bit of information about Anne's lesbian
attraction:

"Sometimes when I lie in bed at night, I have a
terrible desire to feel my breast and to listen to the quiet
rhythmic beat of my heart. I already had these kinds of feelings
subconsciously before I came here, because I remember that once
when I slept with a girl friend I had a strong desire to kiss her,
and that I did do so. I COULD NOT HELPBEING TERRIBLE
INQUISITIVE OVER HER BODY, for she had always kept it hidden from
me. I ASKED HER WHETHER, AS A PROOF OF OUR FRIENDSHIP, WE SHOULD
FEEL ONE AN OTHER'S BREASTS, but she refused. I GO INTO ECSTASIES
EVERY TIME I SEE THE NAKED FIGURE OF A WOMAN, such as Venus, for
example. It strikes me that I have difficulty in stopping
the tears rolling down my cheeks If only I had a girlfriend"
(5 Jan.-44:116).

The Encyclop. Judaica mentions about Meyer Levin, that: "In
1958 he settled in Israel, which was the setting for his erotic
extravaganza, Gore and Igor (1968)" (1971, Vol. 11:109). The above
quotations, supposedly coming from a young girl, sound to us to come
from some other source. Likely they were included to sell the book
and they may never have been in the original diary.

In her next entry she tells about having a dream where Peter
Wessel touched her: "And after that I felt a soft, and oh, such a
cool kind cheek against mine and it felt so good, so good" (6
Jan.-44:117). When her father spoke to her about sex, stating she
"possibly" could not "understand the longing yet" she
exclaims: "I always knew that I did understand it and now I
understand it fully. Nothing is so beloved to me now as he, my
Peter" (7 Jan.-44:120). This by the way was her next entry. On 24
January, 1944, she writes: "Whenever anyone used to speak of
sexual problems it was something either mysterious or
revolting. Words which had any bearing on the subject were
whispered."

However the matter soon got

66

straightened out for she says next in the same entry that Peter
showed her Boche, the cat's sex organs:

"Boche stood on the packing table playing with Peter,
who had just put him on the scales to weigh him. `Hello, do you
want to see him?' He didn't make any lengthy preparations, but
picked up the animal, turned him over on to his back, deftly held
his head and paws together, and the lessons began. `There are the
male organs, these are just a few stray hairs, and that is his
bottom' " (24 Jan.-44:125 6).

Evidently Mrs. Van Daan's statement about Anne that she was
"already proficient in the theory" of sex and it was "only the
practice" she lacked was an understatement (29 July-43:83). Having
learned a cat's sex anatomy she had now acquired the necessary
skills. Joyfully she noticed Peter "kept looking" at her (13
Feb.-44:134). We wonder what otherwise he could have done seeing they
were living in "intolerable proximity." Anne now sensed "a real
feeling of fellowship, such as" she could "only remember
having with" her "girl friends" (14 Feb.-44:136).
"Whenever" she goes "upstairs" she keeps "on hoping
that" she "shall see `him.' Because my life now has an object,
and I have something to look forward to" (18 Feb.-44:138). Nearly
every morning" she goes to the attic to meet Peter (23 Feb.-44:140).
But even Peter can be disinterested, preferring carpentry rather than
love (28 Feb.-44:142). Mrs. Van Daan gets a little anxious and asks:
"Can I really trust you two up there together?" (4
March-44:147). According to Anne, her mother feels that Mrs. Van Daan
is getting jealous at Anne (28 March44:169). Anne admits that it
"is all I was - a terrible flirt, coquettish and amusing" (7
March44:149). Anne's flirtations with Peter continue (19
March114:160) but feels her "style is not up to standard" that
day (161). Things however improve. She feels she yet may have "a
real great lone in the `Secret Annexe,'" and adds: "Don't
worry, I'm not thinking of marrying him" (22 March44:163). Her
sister Margot whom we for some odd reason hear so precious little
about is not jealous. The attic gets called "Anne's second home"
(23 March-44:165). Anne is "longing for a kiss" (1
April-44:172).

On April 11, 1944, matters improve further. She tells us that they
were "so close together that we could feel each other's bodies
quivering" (181). Further progress is made. Peter asks: " `Do you
still dare to go to the front attic?'. . . I nodded, fetched my
pillow, and we went up to the attic. . . Peterput his arm around my
shoulder, and I put mine around his and so we remained, our arms
around each other, quietly waiting until Margot came to fetch us"
(183). How more serenely could they have lived? Progress is still
made: "Peter and I are sitting. . . together... our arms around
each other's shoulders, and very close, he with one of my curls in
his hand" (14 April-44:185). Whether she includes herself in
stating "There's no one here that sets a good example" (185)
we do not know. Finally she could report about a very important day
in her life the first kiss she had been waiting for so long. She
writes about the happenings that transpired during this eventful
occasion (16 April-44:186-7). The day after she can not "see the
use of

67

only just cuddling each other" (17 April-44:188). The
CUDDLING however continues on the next day: "Yesterday Peter and I
finally got down to our talk, which had already been put off for at
least ten days. I explained everything about girls to him and DIDN'T
HESITATE TO DISCUSS THE MOST INTIMATE THINGS. The evening ended by
each giving the other a kiss, just about beside my mouth, it's really
a lovely feeling" (18 April-44:189). They continue to talk
"about the most private things" (15 July44:232). The drama
gets more involved: "He came towards me, I flung my arms around
his neck and gave him a kiss on his left cheek, and was about to kiss
the other cheek, when my lips met his and we pressed them together.
In a whirl we were clasped in each other's arms, again and again,
never to leave off" (28 April-44:193). We presume that by this
time she must have "advanced" quite a lot. It surely must have been
something different from her looking at Rin TinTin films (15
June-42:1). Quite understandable in view of all the foregoing she
takes no "offense at a flirtation, a kiss, an embrace, a dirty
joke" (1 Aug.-44:235). Whether anyone believes the foregoing was
in fact written by a girl experiencing indescribable persecutions or
whether they are interpolations; whatever may be said, we feel quite
sure, those responsible knew how to SELL a story. Likely they also
knew that the story would be boring without these portions. Seeing we
are told portions of advanced sex were elided we can only visualize
what they may have contained. At any rate: How many families had the
time, strength and health during the war to carry on with such
amorous activities and speculations? Yet she, along with her group,
has become the symbol of the most terrible of persecutions that
anyone experienced under the Nazis. This is. a disgrace for all those
people who were unjustly persecuted and who did experience REAL
hardships. The whole Anne Frank story is sickening!

NO STRICT CONFINEMENT

The nature of this colossal swindle may be further ascertained by
recognizing that the people in reality were NOT confined to their so
called "hiding place." The impression that sales gimmicks of various
types have given is however to the contrary. They claim that the
group was strictly confined, hardly even able to either move or
breathe. Absolutely never do we hear of anyone leaving the attic for
fear of being immediately discovered. The back cover of the 1963
Cardinal edition states: "Her diary reveals the life of this group of
Jews waiting in fear of being discovered by the Nazis." EJ states:
"Its GREAT IMPORTANCE LIES IN THE OPPRESSING DESCRIPTION OF THE ALL
PERVADING FEAR AND THE DESOLATE LIFE OFTHE INCARCERATED JEWS"
(Vo1.7:54). The EJ claims Anne "unsuccessfully attempted to elude the
Nazis during occupation of her native Holland" (Vo1.5:581). Storm
Jameson in the "Pan" edition of the diary says:

"Her father had been preparing for months a place to
hide in the two upper back floors of an old building. . . Here
Anne, her sixteen year old sister Margot, and her parents now took
refuge, HUNTED ANIMALS BURROWING OUT OF SIGHT THEY HAD TO
TAKE ENDLESS CARE, ALL DAY,

68

NOT TO BE SEEN OR HEARD, and for an energetic spirited
little girl the life must often have been as maddening as the
punishment of being sent to bed on a fine afternoon" (5,6).

Eleanor Roosevelt tells us: "Anne Frank's account of the changes
wrought upon eight people HIDING OUT FROM THE NAZIS FOR TWO YEARS...
LIVING IN CONSTANT FEAR AND ISOLATION, IM PRISONED... a young girl
LIVING UNDER EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS" (Cardinal ed.,
"introduction."). We have already had plenty of examples what these
"extraordinary conditions" were. The back cover of the Swedish Anne
Frank Diary (1953) clearly advertises: "Her description about her
outer life also grips us, how eight people lived in a pair of attics
obviously wrong] for two years, WITHOUT EVER DARING TO GO
OUTSIDE, not daring to talk loudly, under constant fear of being
discovered:" Again we get disappointed when we start to investigate.
We have already mentioned about "Dr." Dussel putting on his coat
stuffed with food. Where was he heading for? At least one person,
Peter, actually went around the building TWICE DAILY! Obviously those
people writing about the diary have never bothered to READ it. They
have just glanced through it and so they have made their opinions
without bothering to rally read it. The fact that Peter went AROUND
the building further confirms our opinion that the family moved to
the warehouse, not primarily for hiding, for if so they would have
chosen another more suitable place, BUT TO PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY
AGAINST DUTCH THIEVES and likely because they wanted to keep watchful
eyes on those who were now running the business (Compare 29
March-44:170). Once this is kept in mind the entire riddle of the
Anne Frank confusion starts to make sense. Let us give some examples
of the fact it was thieves they actually were concerned about. When
their premises were broken into we are told: "They were in the act
of breaking into the warehouse. Daddy, Van Daan, Dussel, an d Peter
WERE DOWNSTAIRS IN A FLASH" (11 Apr.-44:177). Were they truly in
fear of being discovered they would not have acted in this way. How,
for instance, could they know it was not the police or the Gestapo
who were entering? Mr. Van Daan "beat on the ground with a
chopper." (178) hardly a wise thing to do were they truly in fear
of being discovered. To discourage future thievery arrangements were
made whereby "PETER GOES ROUND THE HOUSE FOR A CHECKUP at half
past eight and half past nine" (183). We are also reminded about
Peter "roaring with laughter" (9 Nov.-42:43), about him doing
carpentry work and chopping wood and his "doing acrobatics round
the room with his cat" (10 Dec.-42:52). In spite of all this we
have been told by such Jewish writers as Margit Vinberg, who has had
personal interviews with the Franks and who states her information is
absolutely correct, that the roller curtains never went up and that
the windows were never opened on the top floors. Somebody must be
lying. Clearly then, no strict confinement was necessary or wanted
for the PRIME MOTIVE in moving into the warehouse seems to have been
to protect their belongings and to keep an eye on the workers in the
warehouse. The story loses all its credibility when these facts are
known and when it is scrutinized under the searchlight. One portion
is the

69

sales gimmicks by which the public have been brainwashed, the
other portion is the real portion which none but those who read the
story carefully will understand. Most people never read their books
carefully, much less literary critics who often get their "reviews"
from paid public relations firms. The Frank family had probably less
of a dramatic life (except of course their constant quarrels, if we
ought to call this "dramatic") than many a Dutch family in Amsterdam
at the time but who never ventured to make money out of their and
other people's miseries like Mr. Frank and his lot did.

VISITORS OVERNIGHT

The so called "Secret Annexe" was frequently visited by various
people during the day. They even shared meals together. A startling
observation the investigator makes is the knowledge that people went
to the "Secret Annexe" to OVERNIGHT. For instance in one place Anne
reports:

"Well! Well! Luckily everything was okay this time.
Meanwhile WE HAD GREAT FUN ON MONDAY. Miep and Henk SPENT THE
NIGHT HERE. Margot and I went in Mom my and Daddy's room for the
night, [but where did "Dr." Dussel go?] so that the
Van Santens could have our room. The meal tasted divine. . . I got
up early this morning. Henk had to leave at half past eight. After
a cozy breakfast Miep went downstairs... Next week Elli is coming
to stay for a night" (20 Oct.-42:37,38).

Schnabel reports that Elli overnighted there also (6:101). Now we
ask: What sane people would under the threat of death consider
inviting guests for dinner and even letting them overnight? The
hazards of people entering the premises at odd hours and never
leaving a warehouse for a whole night would certainly invite
suspicion, to say the least. Instead of blaming themselves, a certain
Mr. "M" is blamed for exposing them! (Schnabel, Introduction: 10,
6:84, 7:117, 8:135, 9:143, 146, 12:189). With some people impudence
knows no bounds. The entire Anne Frank story is one nightmare of
contradiction and hypocrisy. How rubbish of this sort can be foisted
on people is hardly any credit to mankind's intelligence.

ONE DIARY ONLY

There obviously is a difference between one cookbook, two
cookbooks or several cookbooks. They all may be called cookbooks
showing the culinary art from various perspectives yet there is as
much difference from one cookbook to another cookbook to more than
one cookbook as there is in the fact that one plus one makes two -
not one. The original impression we have been given by Mr. Frank is
that it was ONE diary, a gift he had bought for Anne's birthday at a
bookstore. Schnabel informs us about him seeing the bookstore: "the
same store where Otto Frank fifteen years ago bought the diary with a
red checkered cover" (2:32). The information that it concerns only
ONE diary is so prevalent, not only in written articles but also
amongst the general public, that we may consider it to be the
official STANDARD VERSION. Anyone can make his own test by asking
someone about the diary. Invariably he will find that people think of
one diary - not many. We shall cull extracts from written sources
which verify this fact further. It is important to do so as it has a
heavy bearing on the truthfulness of the story. From it we notice an
evolution of the product. It indicates to us how it became a myth;
how it was exploited for

70

sales purposes, used as a tool to present distorted impressions
about the German people and as a tool to peddle Zionism.
Gyldendals store Opslagsbog, Copenhagen, 1967, Vol. 2:252:
"Frank left ONE diary." Focus, Stockholm, Vol. 2:959: "Anne's
DIARY." Aschehougs Konversasjonsleksikon, Oslo, 1969, Vol.
7:94: "who left ONE diary." Bra Böckers Lexikon, Sweden,
Vol. 8:203: "world famous by her surviving DIARY." Katalog
Över Böcker För Folk - Och Skolbibliotek,
Grundkatalog 2, Tillägg 30, Stockholm, 1955:23, an authoritative
work used by Swedish librarians and in school libraries says: "Anne's
diary was found." The back cover of the 1953 Swedish edition of the
diary says: "A DIARY was given to her as a birthday gift when she
became thirteen." Das Tagebuch Der Anne Frank, Svenska
Bokforlaget Norstedts, Stockholm, 1964: "The DIARY by Anne Frank was
written in Dutch" (Forord). The New Encyclopaedia Britannica,
Micropaedia, 1975, Vol.-44:279: "On the hiding place floor
[contradicted by other sources but supported by Simon Wiesenthal:
176; by the play and The Christian Science Monitor, etc.]
he found STORIES Anne had written about elves, bears, and old dwarf
and the diary. [observe here that when it was later told that
Anne was supposed to have written other stories it came as a complete
surprise to many people] He had it published in 1947 as Het
Achterhuis." Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Vol. 7:52: "teen
age author of A DIARY. . . Her name became famous.. . as a result of
the DIARY." Cecil Roth & Geoffrey Wigoder, The New Standard
Jewish Encyclopedia, 1975:697: "While in hiding during the Nazi
occupation of Holland, she wrote... A remarkable `Journal' displaying
great literary ability and psychological insight. This was discovered
after her death." Meyers Enzyklopadisches Lexikon, Mannheim,
1973, Vol. 9:231 says she kept "ONE DIARY." Wiesenthal and Margit
Vinberg make the same claim that it concerns one diary. Encyclopedic
works and other information material all create the impression it was
one diary. Not one hint is given that more than one diary was
involved. No less did the famous drama, a play in two acts by Albert
Hackett and his wife Frances Goodrich; which play by the way is
claimed by some to have been purloined from Meyer Levin, create the
impression it concerned only one diary. One source says the authors
"spent years of research and writing" the drama. The same source
explains how the play begins: "Ready to leave Amsterdam after the
war, Mr. Frank reveals his daughter's diary" (MWD: 207). Thousands
have seen this play where they are left with the impression that it
was one diary, besides of course being left with the thought the
Germans were brutes. What about the printed diary itself? Our
Cardinal edition does not give us one hint there was more than one
diary. George Stevens clearly seems to have been under the impression
there was only one diary. He speaks of "A small red checkered cloth
covered book," of the "little diary seen only by herself." He asks
the father: "how was it they did not find and destroy the diary?" He
tells how the diary was thrown on the floor and how it was
discovered. In the same edition, Eleanor Roosevelt likewise speaks of
only one diary. The back cover speaks also of one diary. The
"Epilogue" mentions that "Anne's diary ends here... Among a pile of
old books, magazines, and newspapers which were left lying on the
floor, Miep and Elli found Anne's diary." In Anne's third last entry
she speaks of:

"These things have made me never mention my views on
life nor my

71

well considered theories to anyone but my diary and,
occasionally, to Margot, I concealed from Daddy everything"
(15 July-44:231).

To "conceal" one diary under "intolerable proximity" would be a
master job in itself but to conceal several diaries under such
condition seems to us to be more than a miracle. Obviously it was the
same "my diary" and "a diary" Anne had spoken to on 20 June-42:2,3.
In moving to her new home Anne writes:

"The first thing I put in was this diary." She put it
into her "school satchel" (8 July42:13).

On 2 Jan.-44:113 she makes the following entry:

"This morning when I had nothing to do I turned over
some of the pages of my diary... This diary is of great value to
me, because IT has become A BOOK of memoirs in many places, but on
a good many pages I could certainly put past and done with.

Our later, English Pan Books (1975) edition continues to maintain
the myth there was one diary in spite of what others, like Schnabel
had previously written. "Storm Jameson" (an obvious pseudonym; more
on this later) writes in his foreword: "Among the presents Anne Frank
received on her thirteenth birthday, the one that pleased her most
was A BOOK with stiff covers in which she began to keep a journal:
she had never tried to write before" (5). It seems that he also is
confused over what kind of book it really was. He continues: "the
first thing Anne packs to take with her is her journal... she kept
her journal, telling it everything she might have told an intimate
friend... Found later in the disorder left by the Gestapo, Anne's
dear journal was given to her Dutch friends... She was not counting
on her journal to lend" (5,6). He proceeds: "And as the last entry in
the journal shows plainly"(9). It is obvious he is under the
impression that this little diary contained in full the complete
printed edition!

The "Epilogue" in the Pan Books edition gives the readers the same
impression as does its back cover. How ingrained this notion has
become in people's minds that it concerns ONE DIARY may be shown by
the experiences we had after people had seen the recent TV show about
the diary which we shall talk more about further on. Although many
felt the TV show was very confusing they still maintained it
concerned ONE DIARY even though they had seen several books, etc., on
that show.

The official AFFA brochure continues to promulgate the impression
of ONE DIARY. There not even a hint is given to us it may be
otherwise. It speaks of the "diary of Anne Frank, WRITTEN IN PRIVACY
of an annexe" (4) making us wonder how "private" that could have been
seeing they were supposed to have lived in such "intolerable
proximity." A picture is shown of a diary on page 5 purporting to be
the one she wrote in. We are told that the advantage of Anne over
Antigone to St Therese is "that she left a diary" and that her
"legend lacks the support of patriotic and ecclesiastical power, but
it has the STRENGTH of her AUTHENTIC, self drawn portrait" (5). How
"authentic" this work really may be we have already touched on. We
are further told that "It took" the father "many weeks to finish
reading the diary" (6).

The celebrities like Pope John XXIII, President John F. Kennedy
(16) and Father Dominique Pire (17) were apparently all under the
impression it concerned one diary. As can be expected the BG:2 claims
the same thing: "It was

72

in this room that Anne's Diary was found" and on page 3 it says:
"When Miep and Elly were cleaning up they found the exercise
books in which Anne had kept her diary It was then that he was
handed the diary of his youngest daughter." What happened to Margot's
diary? We do not know. We shall go into this question further but
before we do so let us begin our next heading by asking the question:
Could there have been more than one diary? Or should we turn the
question around: Could there possibly have been only ONE diary?

MORE THAN ONE DIARY EMERGING

As we have previously observed, the printed entries give us no
hint of there being more than one diary. Anne's statement that:
"At thirteen the fountain pen came with us to the `Secret Annexe,'
where it has raced through countless diaries and compositions for
me" (11 Nov.-43:104) should be so understood that she is writing
about her countless entries in her diary. Possibly the Dutch original
makes this more clear. We have already mentioned that the various
translations do vary and it is many times difficult to get the proper
sense because of the differences in translation.

Officially they maintained (and still do unless expediency calls
for otherwise) that there was just one diary. Likely because of the
doubts that have been aired that there even was ONE authentic diary,
the original propaganda had to be softened up. The legal action which
the father later brought against a student group brought further
difficulties in maintaining the original story. When the
investigators checked the material they found several diaries. The
information however never came out in public. Possibly the death of
Anneliese Schutz, the Jewish journalist, a good friend of the Franks
from the time they lived in Frankfort on Main, helped Mr. Frank to
soften up his original stories. It does not seem that any information
was brought out to the public about the startling fact that there
MUST have been more than one diary. If we are to believe the Dutch
publishers who brought out Verhalen rondom net Achterhuis
(German: Geschichten and Ereignisse aus dem Hinterhaus;
English: Works of Anne Frank, 1959), even they seemed
perplexed to find out that other written material by Anne had been
left behind; indeed a rather precarious bit of news seeing they
themselves had previously propagated that the ruthless Germans were
so thorough in plundering the house so as to leave no telltale signs
to indicate the people were taken to be exterminated. The impression
the sale gimmickers have created was that by some mysterious chance
Anne's diary had escaped their ruthless attention (Anne Frank
Berättelser, "Efterskrift", Stockholm, 1960:169 71).
Seemingly Mr. Frank had difficulties enough to explain to George
Stevens how it was that the thorough Gestapo could have missed ONE
diary - BUT SEVERAL DIARIES ALONG WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS, how they
could have been missed, would certainly make the whole story most
peculiar if not idiotic. The allegation that the premises were
plundered would also have to be abandoned. The story of how Elli and
Miep had found a diary along with a host of other stories would have
to be altered or revised. Already by this time the story was one
mishmash of confusion so that further alterations would be insane.
The dilemma, a fact which for instance can be observed from Ernst
Schnabel's silly book The

73

Footsteps of Anne Frank (1961), was simply solved by
ignoring all logical objections altogether, possibly the wisest
course they could have taken besides the only choice left open to
them.

Ernst Schnabel's puerile book, purporting to be an "authentic"
story about Anne's life and diary was one of the first printed
sources the world received hinting that facts may be otherwise, even
though they are carefully couched so as not to draw too much
attention. In the midst of informing us there may have been more than
one diary involved we are still given the opposite impression. For
instance he states: "Later on, in one of her notebooks Anne had
besides her diary" (2:28; compare p. 37, 3:51, 6:94). He mentions of
her father having bought one diary (2:32). The father is said to have
stated about Anne: "Perhaps she also knew that by now everything was
lost, that's why she walked back and forth and PACKED and did not
give the diary even a sight" (8:134, seeing he was not supposed to
have known about it according to some sources how would he know?). If
there was more than one diary the father should have said
diaries.

Another variation is given by George Stevens in the preface of the
Cardinal edition (also supported by Simon Wiesenthal, 176): that the
Diary was in Mr. Frank's brief case, and that the Germans tossed the
contents onto the floor. They used the empty brief case to make off
with the family menorah (naturally!) and left the "papers and diary"
on the floor where Miep later picked them up. How the diary got into
Frank's brief case in the first place, when it was supposed to be a
secret diary, is not explained. Another one claims it lay in "Anne's
briefcase" (AFFA:8) and so forth. This may also suggest to us she may
have wanted to take the diary with her and it may in fact have been
taken with her. Also, all these various stories coming out make us
wonder whether these people in fact lived the story or had
just read about it.

At the same time that Schnabel suggests one diary he makes it
quite clear in more than one instance that there was more than one
diary involved. He mentions Miep having discovered Anne writing "in
one of these CASHBOOKS we kept in our office. I could recognize it"
(6:93). This may have been her diary. He mentions about the story
"Katrientje" that Anne is supposed to have read to Koophuis. Surely
this would mean there was more to it than just that "little diary"
where not enough space would be found even for the printed version of
her diary let alone other stories (6:94). However, the most revealing
portion which proves the original one diary story to be a lie is when
he informs us that: "Anne's papers and notebooks lay protected in a
metal box in an old, green safety box in Amsterdam. I have seen it.
Inside the box lies the book with the red checkered covers which Anne
started to write in the CASHBOOKS from the office WHICH SHE CONTINUED
TO WRITE IN. Finally. There lies also the bundle of 312 sheets of
silk paper, completely filled with her tight, beautiful handwriting"
(12:186; we should observe here that by the time "Frau Minna Becker"
had investigated the material the amount of silk papers had increased
to 338!). The myth of the one-diary story should be abandoned once
and for all. It has no support whatsoever as far as actual facts
concern. It was invented at the outset to help in peddling an
otherwise worthless product. Once it is abandoned the whole Anne
Frank story loses whatever dramatic effect it had. It merely had

74

private and Zionistic interests. It was used to further the
product onto a gullible public and literary "critics" who were
nothing else but pawns in their hands. It was used as a financial
gimmick. The whole invention is one mass of pragmatism.

We notice an evolutionary process in the diary. Stripped from all
its emotions the story of the diary becomes one hideous outline of a
group of unscrupulous people, callously using a young girl to further
their own aims. Could it be that Anne, contrary to what is stated,
did keep a diary prior to 14 June, 1942? May the red checkered diary
be one she had written in before that time? Unless the father once
and for all comes out in the open and tells the WHOLE truth, the
WHOLE story will continue to be a mystery, even though at this stage
it must be viewed as one of the most hideous literary falsifications
ever foisted upon mankind. The public has a right to know. The father
has gone out to the world presenting it as an authentic document. If
so, he is the one that must produce the goods. We have produced the
evidence showing there is something radically wrong with his story or
rather stories. It is now up to him to show us his cards. Most of us
bought the book and accepted the stories they gave out believing they
were true. We could not dream that anyone would try to fool us in
this manner. Now we want to know the WHOLE truth. Half truths are
often worse than lies. The time has come for him to get into action
and let us investigate the originals ourselves. Nothing else would
satisfy us. That it is a swindle is obvious. What we want to find out
is how this swindle could have been foisted upon us for so long.

ONE FILM TOO MUCH

In connection with the above presentation we would like to give
further evidence, not only on the fact that more than one diary was
involved but also that there are different handwritings. On Friday,
December 2, 1977, at 18:05 in the evening, the Swedish Television (TV
1) showed a film of the Anne Frank Foundation. It started off by
showing the father heading for a bank, a man opening a safety box and
the father taking several items from it. Other sequences showed not
only a variety of items but also what appeared to be different
handwritings. Whenever the handwritings were shown they were either
kept out of focus or the sequences went by so quickly it was most
difficult to follow. The only portion that was at close range and in
focus was when they showed completely EMPTY pages, the LINES could be
clearly seen. At the end of the film the father cooly tells the
audience this was a living document. We were not shown what he was
holding in his hands. It seems more correct to call it a living lie.
True documents speak for themselves and need no gimmicks in trying to
explain them. The film left the impression of confusion. Perhaps
after all about the only true thing of the whole story. People we had
asked said it was a most confusing presentation. Likely it was made
in a desperate attempt by the father to quieten critics and fool the
public once more.

WHY THE ONE-DIARY STORY?

Why was the one diary story invented? Why must the myth be
maintained? Would it not have been even more significant if the
public had been informed at the very outset the girl had written
several diaries along with other stories? Have we not been told about
her literary genius and would this

75

not have given support to the claim? The reason is obvious.
Thousands of other Dutch girls and boys kept diaries. Diaries were
sold all over Holland. Likely their stories were more dramatic than
Anne's and showed much more talent than her fabricated material.
Therefore something more dramatic was needed to sell the story. But
in order to sell it, it had to be changed. Some believe there is not
even one diary existing purporting to belong to Anne that is genuine.
We believe there is. We need not go so far and this may precisely be
Mr. Frank's big problem. There is a diary or diaries existing but not
all may have been written by Anne and the one that she wrote has been
severely altered. Her PRINTED version is different from her
handwritten version. Having changed the genuine version by making
numerous interpolations in order to sell the story the swindlers
created certain psychological soft-spots. To any big lie there is
needed an element of truth. The Anne Frank story has just got all the
ingredients to make the swindle work.

Furthermore, the story needed an air of PERSECUTION so that
inquisitive people would be embarrassed to ask questions for who in
his right mind would partake in persecuting the name and memory of a
defenseless girl? It would also create soft spots in people's hearts.
Once the proper atmosphere had been created by various jugglings
around of events the story was ready to go to the world. Quite
possibly some of it was already made up prior to the war by Mr. Frank
and his most dear friend, Anneliese Schutz, a Jewish journalist. The
one diary story was necessary for the "Secret Annexe" concoction. The
impression was given that their purpose in hiding there was not so
that they should be able to keep a close watch on their business;
even more necessary now as the business had been given over to
gentiles and furthermore: TO PROTECT IT FROM BURGLARS; but that they
were "hiding" from ruthless Germans who ceaselessly searched Dutch
and Jewish homes, meticulously erasing all traces of their wanton
plunders. By it, the suspense was created how a whole family's
possessions were confiscated, how their home was thoroughly searched
so as to leave no trace to the world as the group was shipped away
for extermination - BUT BY SOME MIRACLE the thorough Gestapo had
missed the very evidence which would expose them to the world. It
would reveal to the world about their terrible persecutions and
sufferings. The only trouble was that even in this respect, as we
have seen, the story is a poor one. The hoaxters have been too quick
in giving it out. "Fortunately for us," Storm Jameson writes in his
"foreword" to the Pan Books edition (1975:6), "it is a marvellously
clear image which comes towards us, SMILING, from these pages which
CLUMSY MURDEROUS HANDS did not take the trouble to destroy." However
to maintain that in spite of the Gestapo's thoroughness they could
have missed even ONE diary, as "clumsy" they yet may have been
required some explanation. George Stevens was perplexed and asked
himself this question:

"This destiny to survive was illustrated dramatically
in the conversation I had with Mr. Otto Frank in 1957. We were
sitting in a cramped attic in Amsterdam and I was holding in my
hand a printed edition of The Diary of A Young Girl. It was
in this building that Mr. Frank had sheltered his little group
while they hid from the Nazis. AFTER SERIOUS HESITATION, I asked
Mr. Frank a question to which I felt I MUST HAVE THE ANSWER - `Can
you tell me something about what occured when the

76

Gestapo broke into this room? THEIR MISSION WAS TO
DESTROY HOW WAS IT THEY DID NOT FIND AND DESTROY THE DIARY?: . .
Their mission was to remove the Jews from Holland. While so doing,
they WERE TO LOOT AND TO PL UNDER and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, they were
to leave NO RECORD OR DOCUMENTS OF THIS WORK. . . However, there
remained on the floor the diary of a young girl. The Nazi soldiers
had failed in their mission. They had left behind a comment on
their work" (Preface).

Here we have the clue to the riddle. The one diary story was
invented to accuse the Germans of ruthless persecutions and to
maintain a plausible air of truth over the "Secret Annexe." The diary
also did more than anything else to keep a world blind and to keep
their mouths shut when the "chosen race" invaded and took away
Palestine from its original inhabitants calling it "Israel" even
though the bandits were nothing else but phony Khazars who have no
right whatsoever to their stolen loot. Mr. Frank and his lot and his
phoney Foundation continue to ceaselessly spew hate propaganda
against the Germans, yet these masters of hate have the audacity to
claim they work to abandon hate and prejudice amongst mankind. What
they in fact work for is that not only PERPETUAL HATE should be
focused on the Germans but also so that people will forgive them for
displacing the Palestinians from their homeland. The swindle now
takes on gigantic proportions. As long as all criticism is not
directed against the "chosen race" everything is permissible. The
Zionists must have a clear field to work with and for this reason the
Anne Frank myth is VITAL TO THEM.

Embarrassingly the question remains. Perhaps by some chance those
thorough Nazis could have missed one diary but what about this heap
of other writings that they also left behind? If they came to plunder
and loot and leave nothing behind how could they have missed them? It
is too bad George Stevens is no longer alive. He may have been
puzzled about it. That the Nazis didn't bother about confiscating all
the books and other writings may simply be for the reason they didn't
give a hoot about them. In tracing all the peculiar arguments and
reasonings that have been offered by the exponents of these tales we
begin to get a clear picture of the swindle's vast scope. The whole
postwar labors of the Zionists have been linked up with this fable of
the Anne Frank Diary. It is indeed astounding to find out that the
best proof they can give for holding onto their stolen loot is the
Anne Frank fiction. In their haste to spew hatred upon others and
steal a whole country away from its rightful owners the Zionists have
been caught in their own trap. The whole Zionistic swindle now comes
tumbling down upon them. At no time was it more unfortunate for the
swindle to be exposed than now. For thirty years they have been able
to fool a whole world. What shocking effect this revelation must have
on all those people now realizing they have been hoodwinked.

HOW THE DIARY WAS LEFT AND HOW IT WAS FOUND

One popular version maintains the diary was left up amongst the
beams which was the reason why the Gestapo could not find it. Another
version claims that the mysterious Mr. "M" had saved it. Schnabel's
version is that Elli and Miep found Anne's papers ONE WEEK AFTER the
police had broken in. Why so long afterwards, seeing they were
working there daily, we are not

77

told. Amongst the papers and other things on the floor lay a book
with red-checkered covers. Miep picked it up, recognizing Anne's
handwriting. They took the book with them along with Anne's exercise
books and pink papers locking them up in the large office downstairs,
a place by the way which the new caretaker of the warehouse, Mr. "M"
must have had access to. Curiously Mr. "M" whom it is alleged had
betrayed them and who was working for the Nazis, gave Eli some more
of Anne's papers, making one wonder if he has been intentionally
created as the "baddie" in the story (Schnabel 12:1889).

George Stevens informs us the diary was in "Mr. Frank's brief
case" when the Gestapo entered. Apparently this is what Otto Frank
had told him (Cardinal ed., preface). Simon Wiesenthal adopts the
same view even citing Mr. Frank himself "The SS man took my brief
case. . . threw Anne's diary on the floor" (176). However this view
seems strange for several reasons. Again it makes us wonder whether
not only the others but even Mr. Frank himself was rather
reading a story than living it. Perhaps A. Schutz had helped
him more than we have reason to believe.

In one of Anne's last entries she writes:

"These things have made me never mention my views on
life nor my well considered theories to anyone but my diary and,
occasionally, to Margot. I concealed from Daddy everything that
perturbed me; I never shared my ideals with him" (15
July44:231).

Why then would she have placed her diary in her own dad's
briefcase? Moreover, she had written a nasty letter to her father,
who in finding it stated: "I have received many letters in my
life, but this is certainly the most unpleasant" (7 May-44:201;
compare 6 May-44:200 and 15 July44:232).

It seems reasonable to expect Anne would not stick her own diary
into her father's briefcase where this information was written. It
would have been the best place for him to find her innermost
secrets.

Another official version seems more plausible. It is presented in
the AFFA brochure where it says:

"The legend [we fully agree: LEGEND] had its
start when the Nazi sergeant who arrested the Franks needed
something in which to carry the money and valuables he was
confiscating. He chose Anne's briefcase, and emptied her papers
and notebooks on the floor. It was a fortunate event, for Anne was
then less likely to take the papers with her, and they could lie
unmolested a few days [why if the Nazis constantly were
raiding the places and in view of Mr. "M" being there?]
until Miep and Elli, loyal Dutch friends, found them and locked
them up in Mr. Frank's former office. There the papers stayed
until the return of Otto Frank, the only one of Anne's fellow
fugitives to survive the concentration camps. It took him many
weeks to finish reading the diary; the emotional strain of even a
few pages would overcome him" (6).

In pausing we wonder how they dared to put the most devastating
documents, that would expose the Nazis and which they were after,
RIGHT IN THE OFFICE WHICH NOW WAS TAKEN CARE OFBYMR. "M"? In what
possibly worse place could they have been kept? That the diary was
kept in Anne's own briefcase is also the view of Uff Brandell (*DN,
1959, March 22) whereas Margit Vinberg opts for the view that Mr.
Frank himself found it on the floor (*1956, Nr 35). The BG:3 presents
its version on how the diary was found

78

and in doing so two questions arise. We quote:

"On 4th August 1944, the hiding place was betrayed to
the Gestapo, [this is contradicted by Schnabel 9:143 who
informs that Mr. Frank himself did not believe they were betrayed
but that someone had been careless - if so, then the one he should
blame is himself and his lot] its inmates were arrested and
deported. All furniture and clothing was confiscated; [again
contradicted by Schnabel] some books and papers were left
scattered on the floor. When Miep and Elly, the loyal friends of
the family in hiding, were cleaning up they found the excercise
books in which Anne had kept her diary."

First, that "all furniture and clothing" was confiscated is flatly
contradicted by Schnabel. In his book, Miep is supposed to have said
that everything lay helter-skelter in the rooms and that they looked
so empty, not because they had taken the furniture but because there
were NO PEOPLE there. In fact, she claims that on the floor lay
clothing, letters, papers and exercise books. Even Anne's sweater
hung up on a hook. Therefore, seeing that it is reported that Eli and
Miep entered the place "a week after," then what the BG reports is
obviously wrong (Schnabel 12:188 9). No mention is made in Schnabel's
book that the Gestapo took furniture and clothing with them but we do
read that THE GROUP TOOK THINGS WITH THEM. If they really believed
that they were taken away to be gassed to death (compare 9
Oct.-42:35, 3 Feb.-44:133) why would they have done so? They must
have known others; their own enemies would have taken their goods
away from them. The police on their part seemed to have had trouble
enough to get a large car to take the eight people with them. We are
told: "He phoned a military post and ordered a car `But a large one!'
he said. There are seven or eight persons" (8:134). Later even Kraler
and Koophuis had to follow them in the car (8:135). All in all there
were around thirteen people in the car!

The group of eight people took with them their own belonging s. We
must indeed agree they needed A VERY LARGE CAR. Really then, it was
not the police (Gestapo) who took goods with them but the group of
eight people: "Mr. Frank said They gave us more time than we needed.
Each one of us already knew what he should take with him. It was the
package which we had agreed on we would take with us in case of fire"
(8:134; compare Schnabel 6:87 8). That the sergeant should have taken
"all furniture and clothing" with him seems a bit ridiculous indeed
for he only had a motorcycle which he pushed in front of him to get
it started after leaving the house (8:138). Really, the only ones we
read of taking anything away were the Jewish girl Lies, and Joppie.
They went to the warehouse and took with them some of Anne's property
which sounds a bit greedy to us (4:69). The safe thing to do in view
of all this evidence seems to be to dismiss the whole thing about the
Gestapo confiscating their furniture and clothing and add it to an
already overfilled list of fantasies. Likely the diary was placed in
Anne's own "school satchel" (8 July-42:13) or briefcase and not in
Mr. Frank's briefcase.

Margareta Schwartz in her Expressen article (1976, Sunday: 6,
Oct.10) says, on a basis of her personal interview with Mr. Frank,
that it was Miep who found the diary. Contrary to what Schnabel
reports, that Miep had noticed Anne's hand writing, this version
claims she took it up without reading it and sealed it inside an
envelope thereby indicating it should

79

have been a rather small book. Here again no mention is made of
the other material. How all these other writings appeared on the
scene remains a mystery. Another popular version, if we have not had
enough of them already, claims that it was when Mr. Frank returned to
Prinsengracht he "found Anne's diary in a pile of rubble after the
Gestapo had cleared out the annex." This version is presented in
The Christian Science Monitor (1977, July-44:23). It is also
supported by such celebrities as Simon Wiesenthal and others (176).
Seeing there are so many contradictory versions, both official and
non official, circulating around even in printed material it seems
impossible to find out the truth. It may even be so, and we hope Mr.
Frank will take no offence to our suggestion, seeing he himself has
created such rich varieties of answers, that some diaries were in
fact taken with them by the group AFTER they were evicted from the
homes. They may have been packed in with the belongings they took
with them. There are legions of other stories circulating about Anne
Frank, the group and her diary. We have only taken a few, pointing
out those which the readers themselves are likely to meet and may be
able to investigate.

ANONYMOUS NAMES

Another strange circumstance surrounding the diary is the fact
that the PRINTED diary, loudly voiced to the most significant
document to come out of World War II, does not contain the real
names. The real names we are told have been substituted for
fictitious names. Why we were not told this in the beginning when the
diary first came out is rather interesting. Our 1963 Cardinal ed.
makes no mention that fictitious names are used. In fact it gives the
impression the names are real. It states: "Apart from a very few
passages, which are of little interest to the reader, the ORIGINAL
TEXT HAS BEEN PRINTED" (Epilogue). In other words, only a few
PASSAGES have been excluded. The "ORIGINAL TEXT" has been
printed. However, substituting real names for fictitious names makes
the printed text no longer the "original text." Our 1975 Pan Books
ed. makes likewise no mention of that fictitious names are being
used. The idea about using fictitious names in case the diary was
printed, we are told, may come up after Anne had listened to
Bolkestein (AFFA:14 calls him "Bolkenstein") on the radio, which is
mentioned in her 29 March-4 entry. Henri F. Pommer writes: "It cannot
have been long after this that Anne wrote out a list of FICTITIOUS
NAMES TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR REAL ONES if her diary were ever
published - a list which Otto Frank used, changing for example the
real name Van Pelz to Van Daan" (AFFA:15). Most people are not even
aware that this "authentic document" uses fictitious names. Schnabel
in his irresponsible "authentic history" surrounding Anne Frank gives
us the same information of anonymous names being used in the diary
and he follows up the whole fracas by himself using fictitious names.
In this way no person can follow up on his information. He does claim
however that by writing to Fischer Bucherei in Frankfort they will
send us a list of the real names and addresses (Foreword:9). However
this appears to be but another gimmick in a long line of gimmicks for
when the editor of FRIA ORD, a Swedish paper, wrote them, their
lawyer, Mr. Enst Wahl wrote back in a letter dated Frankfurt am Main,
December 6, 1962, that this was

80

impossible: "I have no authority to give you the desired
information. It is in no way possible to give out the names and
addresses. I beg for your understanding. - Sincerely, E. Wahl,
Lawyer" (1963, March 30:5).

Several questions arise now. The whole manner in which the affairs
have been worked out reek of fatuous play. If Anne wanted to use
pseudonymous names why should she then not be even more interested to
keep herself, her father, her mother, and her sister Margot
pseudonymous? We see the soundness of our query when we remember the
numerous disparaging remarks that she made about members of her own
family. Where is this list which is supposed to contain the
substitute, fictitious names? Where and how was this list found? Did
Miep and Elli also find it? Are Koophuis, Kraler, Kolen & Co.,
Travies, Kitty, Bolkestein, Gerbrandy and others real or not? hew
about "Storm Jameson" the English edition preface author? Are even
the names of the cats pseudonymous perhaps? Why did she use the real
names for Hitler, (20 June-42:3, 19 March-43:64, 10 Aug.-43:92, 21
July-44:233) Mussolini, (26 July-43:82, 10 Aug.-43:92) and Mussert
(27 June-44:224)? Or are they also pseudonymous?

Two further points arise, first, it seems rather coincidental, to
say the least, that after hearing the Bolkstein broadcast (if in fact
it ever took place) Anne speculates on one day having her diary
published as Het Achterhuis the exact title (in Dutch) that
was given to the diary. Secondly, if all the names of her cohabitants
are fictitious, it would be remarkably difficult to trace them in the
concentration camp records where they are all supposed to have died.
Or maybe, as Richard Harwood speculates, it was only their names
which were exterminated!

Anne mentions Dussel endangering their lives for letting Miep take
"a FORBIDDEN BOOK. . . one which abuses Mussolini and Hitler" to them
(10 Aug.-43:92). Why have we not been given proof from the ORIGINAIS
where the REAL names are supposed to be written? Scarcely few
excerpts purporting to be taken from the originals have been
presented and one gets even more suspicious when one notices that the
ones we have seen never include any names. The exception the only
one, being an alleged handwriting of an "interview" by Anne in
Schnabel's book (10:161 opposite page). There the name "Peter" is
found. That a mysterious work of this kind should be classified as an
"authentic document" in learned literature may give us some
indication of the intellectual standard. And perhaps we also have
here a sign of the time for without Jewish support our literary
experts and college presidents would be fortunate to find employment
as janitors while our government officals would hardly qualify even
as swineherds. The literary expertise have joined their hands in
fooling the public. The very fact that an "authentic document,"
claiming to be an exact replica except for the elision of
minor portions, uses fictitious names should indicate to sane people
the real nature of the product. Sane people therefore exclude it
completely for being either a "document" or being "authentic."

DON'T KID AROUND WITH "KITTY"

While we are on the point of names we would like to bring up the
name of "Kitty" which we assume is not pseudonymous for that would
mean it would be an pseudonymous name of a

81

pseudonymous name making it twice pseudonymous. From the date of
20 June-42 the name "Kitty" is used in introducing every entry, even
those in which "Kitty" does not have the remotest thing to do with
it. It is but another gimmick to make the diary popular or is it
found in the original diary and in all those instances? Perhaps it
may only be found in some places or it may not be found there at all
but in one of Anne's letters or it may have been one of her real
friends. We do not know. Again we have been shown no excerpt where
"Kitty" is used. The diary introduces "Kitty" in such a way that the
careful investigator cannot help but get suspicious:

"Hence, this diary. In order to enhance in my mind's
eye the picture of the friend for whom I have waited so long, I
don't want to set down a series of bald facts in a diary like most
people do, but I want this diary itself to be my friend, and I
shall call my friend KITTY. No one will grasp what I'm talking
about if I begin my letters to KITTY just out of the blue, so
albeit unwillingly. I will start by sketching in brief the story
of my life" (20 June-42:3).

If "Kitty" was her only friend why then did she make so few
entries? Besides being one of the most suspicious passages in the
whole diary where the story is trying to sell itself like lifting
yourself with your own boot straps, we know from other portions that
the diary apparently was not kept secret at all, yet the name "Kitty"
still appears. For what logical reason would she use "Kitty" when
others, by nature of her own statement above, in their
inquisitiveness would have asked her who "Kitty" was? Here we believe
there is something which smells more than rotten fish. What a
splendid opportunity Mr. Frank has in helping to convince us if he
would but give us photostats of the first fifteen entries in their
entirity! But Mr. Frank refuses to give us even ONE photostat A
"document" which by so many is claimed to be the most moving
"authentic document" to come out of the Second World War - yet, we
are unable to get even ONE photostat of it from Mr. Frank. What a
pity! We feel Anne would have been more gracious had she been
alive.

TO LIFT ONESELF WITH ONE'S OWN BOOT STRAPS

An interesting point to us is the way in which the diary tries to
give an excuse with an explanation for its own existence. By creating
self importance it attempts to sell itself. We have just made
reference to one portion above. It seems like the story is trying to
lift itself by its own boot straps. Let us take additional quotes
from the mysterious entries that are found in the beginning of the
diary:

"I haven't written for a FEW DAYS, [later on she lets
off writing even for weeks!] because I wanted first of all to
think about my diary. It's an odd idea for someone like me to keep a
diary; not only because I have never done so before, but because it
seems to me that neither I - nor for that matter anyone else - will
be interested in the unbosomings of a thirteen-year old schoolgirl.
Still, what does that matter? I want to write, but more than that, l
want to bring out all kinds of things that lie buried up in my heart.
There is a saying that paper is more patient than man'. . . Yes,
there is no doubt that paper is patient and as I don't intend to show
this cardboard-covered notebook, bearing the proud name of a `diary'
to anyone, unless I find a real friend, boy or

82

girl, probably nobody cares. And now I come to the
root of the matter, the reason for my starting a diary: it is that
I have no such real friend. . . [strange in view of that
she in other places claims to have an abundance of them] I
will start by sketching in brief the story of my life... So far
everything is all right with the four of us and here I come to the
present day. Dear Kitty. I'll start straight away" (20
June-42:2,3, & 20 June-42:4).

The dates are correct there are supposed to be two entries under
the same date. (Her statement "I'll start straight away" makes one
wonder whether it may not be faked.) Does the story appear genuine or
does it seem that they are trying to force the story to fit, like
forcing a size twelve foot into a size six shoe? A. R. Butz, author
of the shocking book The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century which
tries to explode the idea that all of us have believed; that, there
were gas chambers and that six million Jews died, makes a candid
comment about the diary:

"It was in Belsen in March 1945 that Anne Frank is
said to have perished. . . The question of the authenticity of the
diary is not considered important enough to examine here; I will
only remark that I have looked it over and don't believe it. For
example, already on page 2 one is reading an essay on why a 13
year old girl would start a diary, and then page 3 gives a short
history of the Frank family and then quickly reviews the specific
anti-Jewish measures that followed the German occupation in 1940.
The rest of the books is in the same historical spirit"
(Institute for Historical Review, P.O. Box 1306, Torrance, Ca.
90505).

The question to us in view of all the discrepancies, is not, if
the book is faked but HOW it is faked. Let us bring your attention to
further portions from the diary. The 29 July-43:84 entry states:

"P.S. - WILL THE READER take into consideration that
when this story was written the writer had not cooled down from
her fury!"

But we know that only "Kitty" was to know about her diary. Why
write "will the reader take into consideration"? The content of the
17 March-44 entry seems equally construed. In the 29 March-44 entry
we are told of a Mr. Bolkestein, an M.P., who was speaking on the
Dutch News from London requesting "that they ought to make a
collection of diaries and letters after the war." Then Anne claims of
her diary which was supposed to be such a secret that:

"Of course, they ALL MADE A RUSH AT MY DIARY
IMMEDIATELY. Just imagine how interesting it would be if I were to
publish a romance of the `Secret Annexe.' The title alone would be
enough to make people think it was a detective story" (176,
compare 14 April-44:186).

What better excuse could there be for the product? The claim by
H.F. Pommer (AFFA:15) that it cannot have been long after that she
made her list of fictitious names does not make sense. What Anne
states is not that she wants her diary published but that she should
publish a "romance" about the "Secret Annexe." Unless we call the
diary a "romance" (perhaps the best claim for it after all!) the
whole thing seems nonsensical for she had not written a "romance,"
therefore no fictitious names were needed, besides her "P.S.' note
quoted above, already indicates "readers" in the picture. The
statement:

"I must work, so as not to be a fool, to get on, to
become a journalist, because that's what I want! I know that I can
write, a couple of my

83

stories are good, my descriptions of the `Secret
Annexe' are humorous, there's a lot in my diary that speaks, but
whether I have real talent remains to be seen" (4 April44:174
5).

Seems like someone is trying to make something out of it, to
present her being talented, clever and smart, and to make a good
reason for the diary. The same can be said for her 11 May-44:206
entry where she is supposed to have written:

"Now, about something else: you've known for a long
time that my greatest wish is to become a journalist someday and
later on a famous writer. Whether these leanings towards greatness
will ever materialize remains to be seen, but I certainly have the
subjects in my mind. In any case, I wart to publish a book
entitled `Het Achterhuis' after the war. Whether I shall succeed
or not, I cannot say, but my diary will be a great help. l have
other ideas as well, besides Het Achterhuis." Such as The
Works of Anne Frank, perhaps? How prophetic!

All sorts of stories have been presented to the public as to why
the young girl COULD write a diary. Even here they have stretched the
matter so far that by their very enthusiasm in trying to convince us
of its truthfulness we are left wondering if it may not after all be
rigged. Why all this fervor in trying to convince us? Why are all
these "reasons" given? Why not do the only logical thing? Make an
exact replica of the diary - there would be no better way to convince
the public and critics. Yet the most logical is the least considered.
The world has waited for some 30 years from its inception to get at
least a facsimile - they have scarcely given us even a complete page.
Certain news reports have been given out purporting that the complete
diary would be brought out in facsimile but up to now nothing has
been done in this direction. Rather, these reports seem to be just
more attempts to fool the public and make them believe the diary is
an authentic replica of the original (*DN, 1959, April 27, "Tysk
tvivlar p? Anne Frank" by Kama Dannevig).

Schriabel went head over heels trying to establish that the girl
could master the job. Looking for evidence, the best he could
producte were some statements that she could write (2:40,45) while in
the same breath mentioning others who were surprised to find out that
she could write (2:27,34; compare AFFA:13). Schnabel mentions
curiously enough that in the long letter he had received from Mr.
Kraler in Toronto, Canada, (he had moved there) he made no mention of
Anne's diary. Could the reason be that Kraler himself was suspicious
about it? (6:91). Schnabel tries to mobilize some support for Anne's
possibility of being a writer by telling of the event when Mlep found
Anne writing, at which instance Anne's mother is alleged to have said
"they have a daughter who writes" (6:93). That appears to be the best
evidence he could muster up for her "authorship." But which mother
has not seen their daughter writing unless she was analphabetic? What
persons have not seen children writing? Children just love to write.
Does that fact make an author out of every Tom, Dick and Harry? It
would have been more convincing had Schnabel, instead of relying on
ludicrous "reasons" for her "adeptness" as an author, he would
himself produce some solid facts from her own diary by giving us
facsimiles of it. There is not even one facsimile of the diary in the
book. A Swedish news report, mentioning about Schnabel's work on a
new book about Anne Frank,

As any legend has its beginning so did the legend of Anne Frank. A
whole world was led to believe that the diary was a closely guarded
secret of Anne alone. The first time the father got to know about it
was at his return to Amsterdam. It completely shocked him. He could
not bear reading it. Only by a slow, piecemeal reading, was he at
last able to go through it. For instance, the AFFA brochure says of
the father: "It took him many weeks to finish reading the diary; THE
EMOTIONAL STRAIN OF EVEN A FEW PAGES WOULD OVERCOME HIM" (6; compare
Expressen, 1976, Oct. 10, S?ndags: 16: "Sedan b?rjade han l?sa. Ett
litet, litet avsnitt varje kvall. Mer orkade han rote"). So goes the
legend but what are the facts? Even here, like with the rest, we find
numerous contradictions.

Let us first deal with the contention that only Anne knew about
her diary. At the outset we notice the diary makes no mention that it
was given as a gift to her by her father. It merely states:

"The first to greet me was you, possibly the nicest of
all. . . Now I must stop. Bye bye, we're going to be great
pals!" (14 June-42:1).

Is it intentional that the diary makes no mention about her father
giving it to her to - throw an air of mystery and secrecy over the
gift? What evidence besides that of Mr. Frank, do we have that YOU
refers to the diary? In Anne's second entry it speaks of the diary in
this way: "as I don't intend to show this cardboard covered
notebook to ANYONE, unless I find a real friend, boy or girl" (20
June-42:2). She then mentions about guarding her secret by using the
name "Kitty" (3). It seems that Anne's secret was a necessary part in
trying to explain why so little external evidence of her being able
to write could be found, yet out of the clear blue sky, there pops
down a complete diary that becomes world famous, lauded by the press
to be the greatest document to come out of World War II. H. F. Pommer
writes:

"It was to be expected that little external evidence
of Anne's talent would be found. When she went into hiding, she
was not a diarist worthy of much attention. During the twenty five
months in the Secret Annexe, the world of her thought WAS A SECRET
WITHIN - A SECRET A SECRET SO WELL KEPT THAT EVEN HER FATHER
CONFESSED, when the Diary was first published, 7 never realized my
little Anna was so deep"' (AFFA:13).

How silly all this must be can be seen when we realize it must
have been the father himself who was responsible for faking the
"document." The father "realized" quite well his pretended ignorance
is but a smoke screen. On 19 March-44:160 the diary still maintains
that Anne has nothing for herself except her diary: "That I love
peace and quiet too, and have NOTHING FOR MYSELF ALONE, EXCEPT MY
DIARY." In the third last entry it is still maintained that the
diary is Anne's secret:

"These things have made me never mention my views on
life nor my well considered theories to anyone

85

BUT MYDIARY arul, occasionally, to Margot. I CONCEALED
FROM DADDY EVERYTHING" (15 July-44:231).

When George Stevens talked to Mr. Otto Frank in 1957 he was under
the impression that the diary was seen ONLY by Anne, an impression
which at that time was the official version: "Anne was quietly
penning her words in the little diary SEEN ONLY BY HERSELF"
(Preface).

We now make an interesting observation which may be an additional
important clue in indicating The Anne Frank Diary is a
conglomeration taken from a variety of sources. Anne writes:

"Oh, heavens above, now I'm getting you in a muddle
too. Forgive me, but I don't like crossing things out, and in
these days of paper shortage we are not allowed to throw paper
away" (28 Nov.-42:50).

Would she have written that they are not allowed to throw paper
away if she meant her own diary, her most precious possession? Would
she just tear out pages from it? May it not indicate that at least by
this time she had come to the end of her diary, starting to write on
loose sheets of paper? We suggest the following. Besides her Diary,
Anne wrote other things like most children do. She would have had
plenty of time being in the situation she was in. Some were written
on loose sheets of paper. She may have addressed real or fictitious
letters to a "Kitty." This material has afterwards been incorporated
into the diary along with other material. Margot's material may also
be there or it may even be so that the majority belongs to Margot but
the father chose to use his younger daughter as the authoress seeing
that people would be impressed that such a young girl could write
such a book. As we already have stated, no explanation so far has
been given why Margot is so little mentioned. Seeing she is supposed
to have been much more studious and thrifty, why has the father
completely placed her outside?

Others of the group may also have written diaries. Very likely, at
least after Bolkestein's recommendation they also started to write
diaries. After selecting out of the diaries different portions and
typing it out it was later presented to the world as an authentic
document coming from A YOUNG GIRL. We shall go further into this but
we feel that somewhere around these lines lays the truth. Then entry
of Dec. 22-43:108: "A bad attack of flu has prevented me from
writing you until today" may be taken from one of the letters or
part from it or it may even be taken from a letter addressed to
Anneliese Schutz. Anne writes further of her diary: "This diary is
of great value to me because it has become a book of memories in many
places" (2 Jan.-44:113) and she was happy to have her "diary" (7
May-44:202). It isn't likely she would tear pages from it.

As we shall go further into this point we shall now make note of
the fact that contrary to George Steven's assumption, the diary was
not only seen by others but also read, very likely by her own father,
so that his so called astonishments at first reading it is a mere
gimmick to sell the story. We find an entry where Anne is supposed to
have said: "Who besides me will ever read these letters" to
her friend "Kitty" (7 Nov.-42:41). If, by this, she meant her diary
it is an odd comment for at two previous occasions she herself wrote
that others WANTED to read it. The first instance is the snoopy Mrs.
Van Daan:

"I had just written something about

86

Mrs. Van Daan when in she came. Slap! I closed the
book. `Hey Anne, can't I just have a look?'" (21 Sept.-42:26).

Here is another one:

"Margot and I got in the same bed together last e
evening; it was a frightful squash, but that was just the fun of
it. She asked IF SHE COULD READ MY DIARY. I said `yes - at least
bits of it'; and then I asked of I could read hers and she said
'Yes."' (16 Oct.-42:36).

Observe here the important fact that Margot also wrote a diary or
diaries. Where is it? Why do we never hear of it? If the Gestapo left
Anne's diary behind why not her sister's? Did others besides these
two keep diaries? Could it be that the major portion of the diary
actually belongs to her? These questions are indeed most interesting
and demand honest answers.

Lastly we have the Bolkestein bulletin where he is recommending
that diaries and letters be collected after the war at which instance
Anne writes: "Of course, they all made a rush at my diary
immediately" (29 March44:170). Hence it seems that not only did
they know about Anne's diary and were interested in it but they also
knew where it was located. It was not a secret.

Further confirmation that the diary was not a secret at all can be
observed from Schnabel's book. He informs us that the seven other
people at the warehouse knew that she wrote (Preface:8) and that Anne
in fact now and then read out portions from her diary to them (6:91).
We have already observed how others besides the seven (for instance:
Miep) knew about it. Clearly then the claim that the diary was Anne's
secret alone is a myth.

HOW MUCH ELIDED - HOW MUCH ADDED?

It is offically claimed that "Apart from A VERY FEW PASSAGES,
which are of LITTLE INTEREST TO THE READER, the ORIGINAL TEXT has
been printed" (Cardinal ed., Epilogue). The same claim is made in the
AFFA brochure: "Eventually he copied out ALMOST THE ENTIRE WORK,
OMITTING ONLY `some passages which he felt to be TOO INTIMATE or
which might hurt other peoples feelings. He had no thought of
publishing it" (6).

Let us start with the last statement that Mr. Frank "had no
thought of publishing it." We don't believe it. In fact, that was his
BIG problem and worry: To get it published. The EJ clearly states:
"Attempts to have the diary published after the war were initially
frustrated by the unwillingness of numerous publishers" (Vol. 7:54).
No doubt many of these publishers were suspicious or even may have
suspected that the diary was faked. It is to their credit they
refused the work.

Having demolished this ridiculous claim, we move on and say that
if Mr. Frank was so concerned about not hurting people, (by excluding
portions "which might hurt other peoples feelings") we feel that this
would have necessitated that the story would never be published at
all, since the diary is virtually replete with disparaging remarks.
We know absolutely nothing of what proportion of the "original text"
has been printed or how much has been omitted. Apparently Mr. Frank's
Dutch publisher was in the same position for we are told how they
were surprised to later find out Anne had left additional writings.
How these were preserved we have never been told.

87

A DOCUMENT

Encyclopedic and literary works of various types acclaim the diary
to be a "document," an authentic work of a young girl. One of the
reasons it was published was because of the "high literary quality"
in spite of that the girl was so young. The only assurance we have
however of its authenticity is Mr. Frank's own words. Even those
immediately involved with the diary seem to be people with retarded
memories. Schnabel for instance, mentions that Elli on that crucial
day of eviction saw the table prepared "with plates, cups and spoons,
but everything was empty" (12:189) whereas Miep claims everything lay
helter skelter (188). The confusion only increases. Mr. Frank claims
Eli was wrong in her observations (189). There are so many
conflicting stores surrounding the diary no sensible person can look
at it as anything but a nightmare of confusion or, at best, as a bad
joke. In spite of this, or because of it, the mass media have dubbed
it as a great "document." The Philadelphia Inquirer termed it;
"one of the most moving DOCUMENTS TO COME OUT OF WORLD WAR II"
(Cardinal ed., back cover). If so, we must say the world is in a bad
state. That a swindle of this nature should be lauded in this manner
may indicate the present state of affairs. Apparently anything that
gets rigged and which the mass media then can pick up gets called a
"document."

This document of confusion is called by Eleanor Roosevelt "one of
the wisest and most moving commentaries on war and its impact on
human beings that I ever read" (Cardinal ed., inside, front page
& "Introduction"). George Stevens in his "Preface" says of the
Green police who raided the premises that "they were to leave no
record or DOCUMENTATION OF THIS WORK." The Observer: "Few more
moving and impressive books have come out of the war" - Naomi Lewis
(Pan Books, inside flap). Times Literary Supplement: "This
human document should be read by thousands" (Ibid.) Guardian:
"a touch of literary genius about her power to describe them"
(Ibid). Pan Books, back cover: "this touchingly human document
remains timeless in its appeal." President John F. Kennedy wrote:
"the kind and the hopeful and the gentle are the TRUE MAKERS OF
HISTORY" (AFFA:16). Mr. Frank himself considers it of course to be a
living document. The book reviewer Knut Jaensson in his review of the
diary in DN lauded it as being a "completely unique document" (DN,
May-4, 1953).

The Jewish writer Margit Vinberg who had had an interview with Mr.
Frank and who claims her information is absolutely correct assures us
it is: "World War II's most read, humanly document." She claims it is
"Anne's unretouched diary" and that millions of people have been
touched by it because it is a "genuine testimony" (VJ, 1956, Nr 35).
If millions have been touched because it was and is a "genuine
testimony" what shall these millions now think when they learn the
whole thing is a hoax?

In standard works this hoax is acclaimed to be a diary.
Observe what The New Columbia Encyclopedia (USA, 1975:758) has
to say under the word "diary": "Diaries are of particular interest to
historians because they depict every day life in a particular
interest to historians because they depict every day life in a
particular place and time, often illuminating important historical
events. Examples of such diaries are... Anne Frank's diary (1947,
tr.1953), an account of the early days of

88

World War II by a German Jewish girl who died in concentration
camp." Diaries are important to historians and they have an important
bearing on what a world is lead to believe. No book coming out of the
Second World War has been used more effectively in brainwashing a
whole world.

DID ANNE EXIST?

Likely because of noticing all the numerous contradictions,
confusion and mysterious events some people have even gone so far as
to claim that Anne never existed and that the story from its
beginning is a colossal hoax. But the matter is a colossal hoax as it
is, without stretching our doubts so far. In fact, it is because the
girl existed that the story is so grave, so ugly. The big problem Mr.
Frank has is not that he has no diary but THAT HE HAS A DIARY OR
DIARIES. With every hoax there must be elements of truth or it won't
succeed. It would be idiotic to print Donald Duck's picture on a
faked dollar bill or make it out of toilet paper. Everyone would
notice it. No serious faker wanting to succeed would do so. Instead
he tries to get as close to the original as he possibly can.

STRANGE ENTRY

Please observe now Fig 5, a most peculiar entry. It is taken from
the Cardinal edition and is inserted at the beginning of the diary.
The Pan Books edition is identical except for a line that appears
after the period of "Frank" (12) No explanation is given to whom this
"I hope I shall be able to confide in you completely, as I have
never been able to do in anyone before" is directed to. It hardly
can be "Kitty" for she is first mentioned in the THIRD entry, where
Anne says she will begin her LETTERS to "Kitty." In the fourth entry
"Dear Kitty" appears for the first time and is henceforth used with
each entry. We are left guessing. It may not at all belong to the
diary she received at her birthday on 12 June-42 and may actually be
part of a letter. Why she makes no entries on 12 and 13 June is
certainly most strange in view of the fact the diary was supposed to
have been the most precious gift received on her birthday. The
excerpt purports to have been written by the youngest daughter. We
notice the signature "Anne Frank." Observe however another signature
(Fig. 13) which is found in the AFFA brochure (36): "Your Anne M.
Frank." The entries in the diary NEVER END with "Your Anne M. Frank"
but always end with "Yours, Anne." We notice the date of "June 12th."
However the first entry appearing in the diary was first on 14
June-42. She explicitly says in her third entry "I haven't written
for a few days" and that she never kept a diary before (20
June-42:2). How then does 12 June fit in? In view of the above date
and in spite of her statements that she had never kept a diary
before, did she do this? Has she kept diaries before and is the
notion presented to us that she had never written a diary before but
another of the many gimmicks we have been presented with? Why are we
not given the complete entry of 12 June, for the excerpt hardly seems
complete. And in this case we should remember that we are told only a
"very few passages" of no importance to the reader have been left
out. Also, why do we find the date at the end? In the diary the date
appears always prior to the entry and in observing Fig. 13, we
notice no date at all after her signature. We observe also a small
difference with the handwriting (the "F" in Frank is slightly
different) of

89

Fig. 5 and Fig. 13 in spite of the fact that the latter one was
written on 15 July-44:233 thus more than two years have passed in the
young girl's life without any changes in her handwriting. A closer
examination of the originals may also indicate that the same fountain
pen was used all the way through yet we have learned how it got
destroyed in her 11 Nov.-43 entry. Square all this up with Fig. 9
where an entirely different handwriting is shown purporting to stem
from 18 October-42 (BER:36). Perhaps the handwritings in Figs. 5 and
13 belong to Margot, the elder daughter.

Fig. 13 is not a true replica. There the formal signature of Anne
M. Frank (the "M." and the "Frank" never appear in the diary) has
been transposed for it should first appear after two additional
paragraphs. (Part of it moves into the second last paragraph.) Also,
how are we to explain the informal "Yours, Anne" which always appears
in the diary with the formal "Your Anne M. Frank" appearing in Mg.
13?

Another question is whether the handwriting even has the remotest
thing to do with a girl of thirteen. And perhaps the parts that Mr.
Frank is supposed to have, may simply be something copied out from a
book. The document in Fig. 13 certainly could have been copied from a
book, or at least some of it. An example of Anne copying another book
can be found in the Pan Books edition, page 210 (Fig. 15). The whole
matter seems most confusing and has all the ingredients of a palpable
fraud.

In summing up our observations it seems to us that the
handwritings may not at all belong to Anne. The question is to whom;
and when it was written? Do they belong to Anne, to Margot, to
Dussel, to Mr. or Mrs. Van Daan, to Anneliese Schutz, to Mr. Frank,
to his present wife "Fritzi," to Isa or Albert Cauvem or someone else
or may they even be a combination of various handwritings from
different people?

HOW DOCUMENTS MAY BE FORGED

Carefully study now Fig. 13.Here we have actual evidence of the
fact that the replica has been altered and of the fact that the
informal signatures in the diary are not identical to the one
appearing in Fig. 13. Whether it is an exact reproduction in size and
contents with the original we are not told. In any case the signature
has been transposed. This can be observed by going to the 15
July-44:233 entry where the quotation is found. Two more paragraphs
appear there before the signature "Yours, Anne," which by the way is
not the same as the formal "Your, Anne M. Frank." (The paragraph
moves into the 2nd last in the English edition,) What the initial "M"
stands for we also wonder. Observe also the numerous punctuation
marks. By reading the entire 15 July-44 entry it gives us the
impression of it being rigged. We also note the handwriting. How the
printed edition can be contained in a "little diary" is beyond us.
The reader can easily observe how various portions may be lifted
completely out and transposed one of the reasons why photostats are
as good as useless to the serious investigator. Even fascimiles are
completely useless if they have been tampered with in this way.

FRAU MINNA BECKER

Our various attempts to reach "Frau Minna Becker" have been
futile. Mr. Frank has refused to give us her address, so has Dr.
Annemarie Hubner

90

and from Mr. Frank's lawyers at Hamburg we have heard nothing. We
know nothing about her background, who she was, about her
qualifications, where she had studied graphology, whether actual
verifiable tests have been made about her competence, how long she
had been a graphologist. Also, where did she study the "documents" of
the diary? Did she just study photocopies of it, for how long and how
thorough were her studies? If it was the original material she
apparently never made photographic and chemical tests. Her whole
person along with the methods used are shrouded in mystery. We feel
the entire matter surrounding "Frau Minna Becker" needs to be
thoroughly investigated. It seems strange why we are refused
information about her. She may very well just be one of the thousands
of crackpot graphologists existing in Germany. A news report of 1961
mentions that "Some of the world's foremost graphologists appear as
witnesses" speaking about the trial that was supposed to prove the
Diary's authenticity (*DN, 1961, Oct. 17). However it is quite
evident that the only graphologist that appeared was this "Frau Minna
Becker." Suffice it to state that until now we have no verifiable
records about the woman.

Observe now the most interesting way in which the 17 Nov. 61
letter (Fig. 18) to Mr. Frank was written. Photocopies of it were
sent to us by Mr. Frank himself and enclosed in his 22 April 77
letter (Fig. 17). What is made to be "personal" (Personlich) letter
to Mr. Frank, after some reflections seems rather to be a letter
intended for the serious doubter, the aim being to dissuade further
inquiries. It is claimed that because of the bulk of the material
(after all, only some 181 pages!) no photocopies could be made. Then
we are told the "Gutachten" (expert opinion) involves 131 pages,
along with an enclosure of some 50 photocopies. Having thus been told
the reason why no photocopies were made of the entire "Gutachten" we
are then told that a complete photocopy of it in any case is of no
importance, thereby indicating to us what worth they place on their
own "expert opinion." In this way one fabricates a lame excuse to
forward even ONE photocopy. We quote:

There are absolutely no reasons why a mere number of 181
photocopies should not have been sent to Mr. Frank - much less why at
least some were not sent, not to mention their excuse about finding
it of no importance. When those claiming to be the possessors and
guardians of the "documents" view their own praised documents with
such nonchalance we can see it is NOT the critics who disregard the
documents but themselves.

After a short resume of Frau Minna Becker's "expert opinion" Mr.
Frank is asked whether he is pleased with it or if he wants to take a
look at it himself in Hamburg. His lawyers are not allowed to send
the "expert opinion" to him which makes us wonder why he hasn't in
the first place sent photocopies of it to Mr. Frank. If Mr. Frank was
so disinterested in his own case, not wanting to go to Hamburg, he
would at least have had photocopies of Fran Minna Becker's "expert
opinion." With all the money Mr. Frank has made on his faked diary,
the cost of 181 photocopies would have been practical-

91

ly nil. The letter seems to us to have been written for some other
purposes, the real purpose being to smother further inquiries. It
smacks of skulduggery. Apparently Frau Minna Becker's "expert
opinion" was recklessly used by Mr. Frank, the mass media and his
lawyers in evidence for the "authenticity" of the diary against
Lothar Stielau and Buddeberg. Whether the actual "Gutachten" of some
181 pages was given in evidence or a mere resume of it we do not
know, nor if Frau Becker herself appeared in court. The court case in
itself seems rather mysterious. The 27 Nov. 61 letter to Mr.
Mank(Fig.l8) appears to carry the signature of Ares Damassiotis, one
of the lawyers. His name is not on the letterhead of a letter which
the firm sent us (Letter of 21 1277) and he may have left the firm.
Peculiarly enough the same letter makes the statement that the
"Anschrift" and this "Madame Minna Becker" are unknown to them. They
still carry Mr. Frank's legal interests. We plan to throw more light
on this court case and related subject in our next book. It is
sufficient to state at this moment that people who work for truth and
with truth do not work in this manner.

THE FORGERY UNMASKED

We feel our lengthy presentation has completely shattered the Anne
Frank "document" and has unmasked it for what it really is: a
forgery. We have endeavored in our First Part of the book to analyze
the historicity and veracity of The Diary of Anne Frank. For
this task we have used the material at our disposal. We would have
wanted to make a thorough investigation of the VIRGIN source
material. However Mr. Frank who had previously shown a spirit of
cooperation later refused all further contacts between us when he
found out that we wanted to investigate the virgin source material.
Nevertheless, our concentration for the first part of this book has
been on the INTERNAL evidence of the diary itself. The Cardinal
edition (1963, 36th printing) was used. As there are discrepancies
between the various translations we have nevertheless used the
English version seeing it is the version most widely circulated. It
has not been an easy task for us to untangle the labyrinth of
confusion which surrounds not only the internal details of the diary
but the entire question of how it came to be used as one of the most
successful tools for the Zionist cause. A detailed study of the diary
itself makes it apparent to every thinking person the story is one
hopeless mess of confusion and contradiction. We are sure that after
the readers have perused our study they will find additional
contradictions. From the evidence we have produced it must be obvious
to the readers the "document" is a forgery, a monstrous travesty
foisted on mankind by an unscrupulous crowd of people. Without a
question of doubt it must be considered as the 20th century's biggest
literary hoax. Readers wanting to assist us to untangle the forgery
further are encouraged to send us their information and material.
Work is already started on a sequel to our study wherein numerous
documents and information will be presented exposing and penetrating
this racket further. In the meantime we rest with the words of FIAT
JUSTITIA, RUAT CAELUM: let justice be done, though the heavens
fall.

WHAT OTHERS SAY ABOUT THE ANNE FRANK DIARY

The question of the authenticity of the diary
is not considered important enough to examine
here; I will only remark that I have looked it
over and don't believe it. For example, already
on page 2 one is reading an essay on why a 13
year old girl would start a diary, and then page
3 gives a short history of the Frank family and
then quickly reviews the specific anti-Jewish
measures that followed the German occupation in
1940. The rest of the book is in the same
historical spirit.

Dr. Arthur Butz
Northwestern University, Illinois
author: The Hoax of the Twentieth
Century

The Diary of Anne Frank may be a
fraud. It was sold as the actual diary of a
young Jewish girl who died in a Nazi
concentration camp after two years of abuse and
horror. Any informed literary inspection of this
book would have shown it could not possibly have
been the work of a teenager.

Dr. Alfred M.
Lilienthal
author: The Zionist Connection

Is The Diary of Anne Frank authentic?
For the past two years this question has been
one of the subjects of my seminar entitled
"Document Appraisal." The Diary o f Anne
Frank is a fake. This is the conclusion of
our research and studies. It is also the title
of a book I am going to publish myself. The
Dutch version of the Diary contains a
number of impossibilities, when considered
against the practical and concrete reality. A
visit to the actual locations in Amsterdam
confirms the existence of a multitude of
practical impossibilities; the tentative
explanation of some of them given in the
Foundation's brochures confirms our conclusion
of deliberate trickery at work. I have spent
nine hours interviewing Anne Frank's father in
Switzerland - the interview merely underlined my
conclusions of fakery. In Amsterdam, I
interviewed Miep and Elli, as well as Henk.
These three people have awkwardly tried to
defend the legend of which they themselves are
beneficiaries; they were unable to give me any
detail about the life of the fugitives in the
attic although they were supposed to have
visited them every day. The policeman who
arrested the fugitives 'on 4 August 1944 was
Austrian. In Vienna I gathered information which
confirms our conclusion of deliberate trickery
at work. This may also explain why it was that
when Simon Wiesenthal discovered the arrestor in
1963, Mr. Frank hurried to the arrestor's help.
Finally, the supposed German "translation" of
the Diary is nothing of the sort, but
another book altogether. It was written prior to
1950, when the Dutch version (1947) seemed that
it was never going to be a success. There are
even two German versions, with slight
differences between one and the other. Unless
Anne Frank has risen from the dead to transform
and alter the text of her Diary, then we
must conclude that her father has been the
author all along.

Dr. Robert Faurisson
Professor of Document Appraisal
University of Lyon, France.

QUOTES

"If the Anne Frank case should turn out to be
a hoax, a thing which we will conclusively
prove, it must, in view of its vast undertaking
and impact on world opinion, be one of the most
flagrant literary hoaxes ever foisted on
mankind."'ABOUT ANNE FRANK AND THE
"DIARY"'

"We learn a lot about the diary's real
intention when we observe how it looks at those
who lost the war. The diary has been heralded as
the most truthful document coming out of the
Second World War showing the cruelties of the
German people under Hitler. Obviously one of Mr.
Frank's and his cohorts' chief aims was to
perpetuate hate against the Germans; make it out
as if the Jews were the only real sufferers of
these tragic events while giving an excuse to
the world for the Jews' to barbarically evict
the Palestinians from their homeland. The main
reason why a world stood quietly by, abetting,
encouraging or fence-watching the Jews as
they invaded Palestine in the greatest
racket and insidious scheme ever perpetrated on
mankind, was because they were constantly being
reminded (through Jewish propaganda who
ruled, and still rule, who owned, and
still own, the mass media) about such cases -
the pivotal example being Anne Frank.

Through books, newspaper articles, condensed
articles in magazines, movies, dramas, school
plays, records, tourism and other schemes the
world got brainwashed hearing about Anne Frank,
and still keeps hearing about her. That is why
the "legend" of Anne Frank must never die. If it
falls and dies the whole Zionistic conspiracy
will fall with it. "If you don't support us,"
they remind us, "you are just as cruel and
guilty as those blasted Germans who railroaded
Anne Frank to her death and six million other
Jews." The shout never dies. It must never die.
And which sensible person would want that to
happen to anyone, much less a child!"'HATEMONGERS AND
WARMONGERS'

"It has not been an easy task for us to
untangle the labyrinth of confusion which
surrounds not only the internal details of the
diary but the entire question of how it came to
be used as one of the most successful tools for
the Zionist cause. A detailed study of the diary
itself makes it apparent to every thinking
person the story is one hopeless mess of
confusion and contradiction. We are sure that
after the readers have perused our study they
will find additional contradictions. From the
evidence we have produced it must be obvious to
the readers the "document" is a forgery, a
monstrous travesty foisted on mankind by an
unscrupulous crowd of people. Without a question
of doubt it must be considered as the 20th
century's biggest literary hoax."'THE FORGERY UNMASKED'